Lord Cunningham of Felling

John Anderson Cunningham, Esquire, having been created Baron Cunningham of Felling, of Felling in the County of Tyne and Wear, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Woolmer of Leeds and the Lord Pendry.

Animal Shelters

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to inspect and regulate animal shelters.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the draft Animal Welfare Bill includes a duty on those who are responsible for animals to ensure their welfare. This will apply to those who run animal sanctuaries. In addition, the draft Bill contains a power to introduce secondary regulations, associated inspection regimes and codes of practice to promote the welfare of animals, including those in sanctuaries. We will work closely with representatives of animal sanctuaries, animal welfare organisations and enforcement agencies to develop specific proposals.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer is certainly encouraging? He will have read, as many people have, of terrible cases where people with the best will in the world take in large numbers of animals which they are not capable of looking after. Very often this leads to terrible consequences in terms of suffering in these animals, which are discovered only late. Would it be too optimistic to expect that the regulations which may be forthcoming in the new animal welfare Bill will also provide for inspection?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot comment on the draft Bill as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, will know from her experience as a Minister. But the noble Baroness makes a very good point. Animal sanctuaries are not currently regulated or inspected. Under the 1911 Act police have powers of entry if they have reason to believe that an animal is suffering unnecessarily.
	We believe that most sanctuaries have very high standards of care but that sometimes those standards slip. The existence of a duty of care will allow enforcers and in particular the RSPCA to take action before animals are subject to unnecessary suffering. The draft Bill provides an opportunity for animal sanctuaries to be regulated under secondary legislation.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, many of the animals and birds that end up in animal sanctuaries start out being bought by people at pet fairs. Can the Minister say what his department is doing about the issue of pet fairs and in particular bird fairs, which currently pose a particular bio-security risk in view of avian flu? Birds may be particularly likely to come into contact with each other at such fairs.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that I will be answering a Question on avian flu on Thursday. On pet fairs, the Government well understand the points that she makes.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, will the Minister consult with the Companion Animal Welfare Council which has produced an excellent report on this matter and of which my noble friend Lord Soulsby is chairman?

Lord Bach: My Lords, indeed we will. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that issue. The work that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and others do in that organisation is very much appreciated by the Government. I know that the organisation works very closely with my department, Defra.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I believe that the local trading standards officers in England have a role as livestock inspectors. I wonder why their powers have not had some bearing on this matter. I would like to know whether they have ever used them and actually taken any action on animal shelters.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Duke whether they have. However, at the moment, we think that the law is defective in that there is no proper regulation or inspection. By "regulation or inspection" I mean a light regulation and inspection, not some heavy-handed constant inspection. Under the draft Bill that will be a role in which local authorities have an important part to play.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how is it intended to differentiate the person, referred to by a noble Lord, who takes in animals simply out of the goodness of his heart, from a body that is run as a charity or even a commercial enterprise?

Lord Bach: My Lords, if I may say so, that is another very good question. We are working on that distinction as I speak. The sanctuaries are often charitable organisations that do a thoroughly good professional job in looking after animals, but sometimes that is not so successful. On the other hand, there are people who take in animals and sometimes they do an excellent job too. It is important that the law should cover everyone.

Disability Benefits

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are considering any change in the provision of disability benefits such as the disability living allowance.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are committed to retaining both disability living allowance and attendance allowance, which play a vital role in promoting independence and greater equality for disabled people. We will be publishing a Green Paper on welfare reform, including proposals for incapacity benefits, in due course.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But will he confirm that people who become disabled before age 65 can claim the disability living allowance and that they can continue to get it after 65? Will he also confirm that people who are disabled after 65 are not allowed to claim for DLA, and that they are allowed to get only the attendance allowance, which is much less valuable? Is it not unfair to older disabled people that they should be treated less favourably than younger disabled people? Is this not a case of discrimination of the kind against which we in this House have campaigned for many years?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is of course entirely accurate in his remarks in his two questions on the distinction between DLA and AA. However, I do not agree with his final point on discrimination. It is normal for pension benefit schemes to contain different provision for people at different stages of their lives. The DLA mobility and lowest-rate care components are focused on providing extra help to those who are severely disabled early or relatively early in life.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are various discriminatory knock-on effects between the two allowances? Whereas people receiving DLA receive exemption from vehicle excise duty, those on attendance allowance do not. Those on DLA are also passported directly to receive a disabled blue badge parking badge, while those on AA have to go through the discretionary system through the local authority. AA claimants have to wait at least three months longer than DLA claimants before they receive any benefit. Could action be taken on those knock-on discriminatory effects in the near future?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must respond in the same way as I responded to my noble friend Lord Ashley. The two allowances, DLA and attendance allowance, are based on the practice of many years of having different provisions for people at different stages of their lives. I realise that sometimes that can throw up some of the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned, but I cannot raise her hopes at this stage.

Lord Carter: My Lords, DLA has always been intended to meet the extra costs of disability. Will the Minister agree that any attempt to means test the DLA would run directly counter to the principles and understanding that we have about this subject?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is my understanding. I accept my noble friend's point.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as with the rest of the population, disabled people's needs increase as they grow older, particularly in relation to mobility?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions. Differing circumstances will apply to different members of the community. It would be difficult to draw that exact conclusion from the noble Baroness's remarks.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that any talk about reforming disability benefits has traditionally led to a great deal of fear and misapprehension? Will the Government give us a timescale under which they will present not only new Green Papers and so on but also some description of their thinking to prevent the round of fear-mongering that occurred last time?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. I hope that members of the disabled community do not fear. The Green Paper is due to be published shortly: I cannot give the House an exact date. Let us take the example of incapacity benefit. The incentives and procedures under which incapacity benefit is currently undertaken often act as a disincentive to people on incapacity benefit from going to work. The aim of the welfare reform programme in relation to incapacity benefit is to change the incentives to support those who want to go back to work where it is appropriate and possible, because life outcomes for those people will be greatly enhanced.
	We know, for instance, that between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of people coming on to incapacity benefit wish to go back to work if it is possible. This is not about forcing people to do something that they do not want to do, but about having the right incentives to encourage people.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is now official: the Secretary of State said only yesterday that the benefit system over which he presides is "crackers". The Minister has spoken of the plans to review incapacity benefit. Will he explain why the changes are intended to come in only after 2008, and there will be no changes to the people he has just described?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I will not go further into the detail of the proposals because we are still working on them. When we publish them I have no doubt that we will have a good discussion. As regards whether the system is "crackers", I do not think that anyone looking at the benefits system under either the previous or the current administration would say that it bears all the hallmarks of a rational approach. That is why the welfare reform agenda is so important. At its heart, it is designed to put the right incentives in place to get as many people as possible back into work. We know that the life outcome for people in work is much better than it is for those who are not able to work, and that is of critical importance in what we will be proposing.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that carers—those who look after older and disabled relatives—can also benefit from improving their life chances by going back into work or combining work with their caring duties, and that therefore any review of disability benefits must include that important aspect as well?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an important point which I shall bear very much in mind.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent the views and expertise of the Disability Rights Commission have been taken into account in the Government's widely publicised review of benefits and their proposals for changing current arrangements?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there have been a number of meetings with groups that represent the views of disabled people. Certainly I took part in one meeting between the Secretary of State and the chair of the Disability Rights Commission. I pay tribute to the commission for the approach that it is taking, and I can assure my noble friend that it continues to have access throughout the department. I have no doubt that, once the Green Paper is published, it will want to take a full part in the debate.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the press quotes many different figures for the number of people who are on incapacity benefit. Can the Minister tell us precisely how many people are in receipt of that benefit and, if possible, what proportion they comprise of the working-age population?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the number of people receiving incapacity benefit in 2004 was about 2,590,000. That excludes IB short-term lower cases, in order to allow historical comparison.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—

Lord Chan: My Lords, in inner-city areas the amount of paperwork has increased for doctors because of incapacity benefit and disability benefit. Can anything be done to ensure that it is reduced?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, GPs have a vital role to play in the advice and encouragement that they give their patients in relation to considering work and the health benefits of going back to work. I understand the noble Lord's point about paperwork. I have taken part in a number of good discussions with the BMA and other doctor groups, and it is a matter that we are fully considering.

Cricket: Television Coverage

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider making Test cricket into one of the national sporting events that can be shown only on terrestrial television.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, cricket Test matches played in England are on the list of events which must be offered to the main free-to-air broadcasters, but only for secondary coverage such as highlights. That position, established on the advice of the independent group chaired by my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane, will be examined when the listing provisions are reviewed as digital television take-up increases.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, first, I must declare two interests: as the chairman of the all-party cricket committee, although I am speaking in a personal capacity, and as a member of Lancashire County Cricket Club, the home county of Andrew "Freddie" Flintoff. Will my noble friend join me in congratulating Michael Vaughan and the team on winning back the Ashes from Australia in what was an exciting, enthralling and spectacular series? It attracted huge interest, with 8 million people watching it on Channel 4. Therefore, will my noble friend use his great influence to get the Government to reopen talks with the ECB, Sky, the BBC and other terrestrial TV stations to see whether, even at this late stage, it is possible to get some live cricket on terrestrial TV next summer? I am afraid that we cannot wait until 2008, because the immense interest will have gone—particularly that shown by young people.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, these are of course commercial contracts signed by the cricket board and the television authorities. They obtain up to the dates that I have indicated, but we are in a position to review the situation with the onset of digital television. My noble friend will recognise that the whole House sides with him in congratulating the extraordinary and wonderful successes of English cricket this year. That success was built upon increased resources for cricket, of which 80 per cent were represented by television. That is why we would have to tread most carefully in limiting the resources available to cricket. At the same time I accept entirely that my noble friend is right that the interest in cricket has been stimulated this year as at no other time that any of us can recall.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister in his robust answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. Does he not agree that one reason we were successful in regaining the Ashes was the fact that after the contract with the BBC—which paid a low fee to cricket—was terminated, a new contract with Channel 4 and Sky was introduced which enabled a large amount of money to go into cricket. That included building the academy at Loughborough. Without those additional funds, we would never have done so well. So will he consider very carefully before making any changes to the current situation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I will consider carefully the comments I have just made in reply to my noble friend, which the noble Viscount has just reiterated and asked me to agree to. I am happy to comply with that injunction. We should recognise that cricket's overall position is that it is very significantly dependent upon television revenues, because—as we all recognise—the attendance at other forms of cricket is quite limited, as are the revenues obtainable through other sources. It is also the case that, in fact, broadcasters too have their problems with regard to cricket. It is a fairly protracted game, and there are problems for terrestrial television channels in devoting huge amounts of time to it. Although the Channel 4 television provision was hugely successful in the appreciation of all those who watched it, the company itself made a substantial loss on the arrangement.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Government review the situation, will they take into account the essential test—which should be, in my view, that the sport in question should reach the widest possible audience?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is of course an important objective. We all want to see an opportunity for as many people as possible to appreciate on television the sport that they follow. But the House will recognise that the listed events—such as the World Cup Finals, the Olympic Games and, each year, the FA Cup Final, the Derby and Wimbledon—are of a different order from the regular playing of test cricket every year, with many days devoted to it. Test cricket may have 25 or even 30 days in a season. That is the basis of the difference, and why we are mindful of the fact that putting Test cricket on the restricted list would present some difficulties.

Lord Addington: My Lords, would the Government agree that if they were to interfere with the sport's revenue funding they would be under an obligation to fulfil that hole in the funding? In this case, I believe that about £20 million has been quoted. Also, would they agree that if we had all been able to watch England lose again, through lack of investment, there might not be quite so much fuss now?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, success certainly breeds success and we want to see English cricket build on this year. But the noble Lord is right; a judgment in favour of a government subsidy for cricket might not meet with universal approval, particularly as other sports would make their claims too. The restricted list is based upon accrued practice over a number of years and we stand by it.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government are entirely behind the plans announced by the chairman and the director-general of the BBC to move the BBC sports department to Manchester, where it will have excellent access to Old Trafford?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am being invited to support both Manchester and Lancashire from the Dispatch Box and I may reflect a certain prejudice. The move is a matter for the BBC, but it will be welcomed in many quarters.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to pursue their policies against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in the light of the lack of progress at the recent United Nations summit on that issue.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the summit delivered worthwhile reforms and commitments, many inspired by the vision of the high level panel, of which the noble Lord was a member. The United Kingdom worked extensively for proactive language on non-proliferation that would spur international efforts to strengthen the regime. We were therefore disappointed that this did not prove possible. Despite this, almost all states continue actively to support the various non-proliferation instruments. The United Kingdom places a high priority on non-proliferation and will continue to seek practical solutions to non-proliferation challenges in all relevant international fora.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and take the opportunity to congratulate Dr Mohammed El Baradei and the International Atomic Energy on the well merited award of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Minister's remarks were somewhat general, but does he agree that it is now necessary to give a higher political profile and much greater urgency to work on an international scheme that would guarantee nuclear fuel supplies to civil nuclear users in good standing with the IAEA and thus provide the crucial underpinning to the very necessary moratorium on the construction of new uranium enrichment and reprocessing plants?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I associate the Government and, I am sure, the House with the congratulations to Mohammed El Baradei and the IAEA. It is a well merited Nobel Peace Prize. I hope it will emphasise the international community's commitment to non-proliferation. I accept what the noble Lord said. There are some interesting proposals in the area of establishing real or virtual banks for nuclear fuels with some element of international involvement. But it is not a straightforward proposition: governments and experts have been trying to find a solution to the problem for decades. Each reactor has its own fuel and no one of them could work as a fuel bank. There would be a number of fuel banks. But I do not want to make progress on these difficulties sound impossible. They are complex but I believe that if we work on them we will find a solution in order to resolve the problem that the noble Lord has illustrated.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government have not taken action to implement the 2003 decision by the Council of Ministers to set up a weapons of mass destruction centre to oversee the work of the Union, Commission and Council? The decision has been repeated on a number of subsequent occasions and the lack of action has been noted by Sub-Committee C of the European Committee in this House. Why have the Government so far done nothing to advance this case?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is not true to say that no work has been done to advance the more general issues of European security or, indeed, to get a co-ordinated view on non-proliferation. We achieved a co-ordinated European view during the United Nations summit. Efforts have been made in the areas where we believe we can make the most progress. The progress—whatever the difficulties of the recent conference—is illustrated by the fact that most nations have remained committed to non-proliferation. Observance of the international treaties has been successful. That is where the work has been done to considerable effect.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the proposal from the Nuclear Threat Initiative organisation, of which the former Senator Sam Nunn is the leading figure, for exchanging highly enriched uranium research reactors in Africa for low enriched uranium reactors, with the IAEA making that fuel available? The Minister will recognise immediately that that would sharply reduce the opportunities for proliferation of highly enriched uranium from an entire continent.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are aware of that initiative. It is an initiative that could bear a good deal of forward study. That can often be taken as a euphemism for not doing a lot over a considerable period, but I do not wish the House to think that that is what I am saying. A few such initiatives being advanced will give us the greatest security across continents in the control of fissile materials.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Carnegie Endowment which argued that the two threats—thermonuclear as distinct from chemical biological weapons—should be separated rather than confusingly combined as WMDs?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I understand why expressions such as WMD have such currency. People regard all terror weapons as appalling threats whose consequences are wholly untenable. In a general sense, the practicalities of international treaty making mean that those things are dealt with distinctively. There is a significant difference between the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the test ban treaties in relation to nuclear weapons, the biological and toxin weapons convention and the chemical weapons convention. In international treaty making there must be precise answers to precise problems. The distinctions made by the noble Lord make huge sense in ensuring that that is what happens.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the Foundation for Peace being promoted by Oscar Arias, the former president of Costa Rica? He is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize because of drawing the wars in Central America to a conclusion. Are the Government aware of that foundation's objectives and what are they doing about it?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I acknowledge that I heard about the foundation relatively recently, and have asked for further information. It sounds an interesting initiative and I confess that although I do not yet have a full briefing I am eager to have one.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister happy that we are aligning our policy with that of the United States, given that the United States is risking the future of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty by discussing the testing of new weapons and micro nuclear weapons, which would endanger the future of the NPT?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government have taken the view—this is the baseline from which we should start—that we will adhere strictly to our international treaty obligations. It is obviously a matter for the United States to consider what sort of weapons systems and assets in that area it believes are essential to its security.
	In the United Nations discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drew our attention in asking the Question, I heard it argued that the United States was responsible for the lack of progress. Some authoritative figures said that the United States was not responsible for the progress. I was there and heard a number of other nations taking views that were wholly destructive of a sensible process. Many of them should share the joint international odium for not making the progress that Kofi Annan rightly insisted should have been made at that conference. We have to find routes to take us further forward, not least to ensure that international treaty obligations are observed in the way that we intend to observe them.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I have two brief business announcements. The first concerns a Statement, which, with the leave of the House, we will take later this afternoon. The Statement concerns the European Union, Croatia and Turkey. It will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Triesman and it will come immediately after the three opening speeches—that is to say, after the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
	The second comment concerns timings for today. As the House will recall, yesterday we accommodated 76 speakers to finish before midnight, which was no mean achievement. We suggested a six-minute time limit and, to put this as sensitively as I can, several people have said to me that the suggestion that speeches should be accommodated within six minutes in no way diminished the quality of the debate. That might be a text for future reference. We will see whether we can perform the same trick again. Today we have 46 speakers but, as the House knows, we aim to finish by about 10 o'clock. We will certainly achieved that and hear the Statement as well—again, if people are able to accommodate their speeches within six minutes. I make that suggestion again, with a reminder that six minutes means that. As someone suggested to me that I was not clear enough yesterday, perhaps at the risk of boring the House I may repeat that when the figure 6 appears, the six minutes have gone.

Civil Aviation Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am sorry that my noble friend cannot be here this afternoon, but a family illness means that she has had to be called away to the West Indies. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in sending her our good wishes.
	I keenly anticipate this debate—in particular, the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Corston, because she has been involved in these matters in her distinguished chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I also keenly anticipate the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock because he is the chairman of Heart of Midlothian Football Club at a time when they are enjoying unparalleled success—thanks entirely to his chairmanship.
	I will of course attend the opening and closing speeches and as much of the debate this afternoon as possible but, with your Lordships' leave, I will have to leave to attend the swearing in of a new judge and to meet Peers during the course of the afternoon.
	This is an important but controversial Bill. The gap in the criminal law that it seeks to address allows people to stir up hatred against others on the grounds of religious belief or lack of religious belief.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, strictly speaking, that is quite untrue, is it not, because the Public Order Act prevents the sort of behaviour to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, it is not. The problem with the Public Order Act is where you are addressing people other than the people whom you are insulting or abusing with a view to stirring up hatred among them against a particular religious group. That is not currently covered by the criminal law, and that is why there is a gap that needs to be covered. Let us be clear, it is a small gap in the criminal law capturing, as I just said in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, behaviour that is not already covered by the existing common law offences of incitement or by offences in the Public Order Act. It is nevertheless a gap in the law that can be exploited by those who seek to sow the seeds of hatred against some of our most vulnerable communities. These are rule issues, not theoretical issues. Muslims of all races, including white Muslims, have been victims of hatred. And incitement to hatred against so-called infidels and apostates by religious extremists is also a very real phenomenon in some communities.
	I am sure that we all accept as a matter of principle that this is something that the criminal law should seek to address. Indeed, the Association of Chief Police Officers' representative, when asked by the Select Committee on Religious Offences about the disturbances in Bradford in 2001, said that the sort of material this offence would outlaw,
	"did significantly impact upon the situation . . . I agree that incitement to hatred on religious grounds would make a significant difference in terms of our ability to deal with this kind of material".
	The offences in the Bill are all the more necessary because there is an inequality in the level of protection provided to Jews and Sikhs and to other faith groups. Jews and Sikhs, as a result of case law, are protected from having hatred stirred up against them under the existing offences of incitement to racial hatred. We believe that the same level of protection should apply to all faith groups and to those without religious belief.
	Again, I am sure that most of your Lordships will agree that this is a laudable aim—that it cannot be right that the law protects some communities and not others. The question is whether we have achieved our aims in the Bill and the argument here is whether, as drafted, the Bill would have unintended and unacceptable consequences in relation to freedom of speech.
	The Bill will impact on freedom of speech just as the incitement to racial hatred offence does. That, we believe, is right because there are words and actions that should have no place in civilised society. But, of course, what we must guard against is going too far, and this will be—I am sure—the central focus of the debate this afternoon. We believe that the Bill will not have an undue effect on freedom of speech. In particular it will not stop the telling of jokes about religion or the ridiculing of faith. It will not close down debate about religious beliefs or stop artists from dealing with religious subjects.
	We believe that this will not happen for the following reasons. First, the offences require that the language or behaviour be "threatening, abusive or insulting". Legitimate debate and discussion about those who follow a particular faith does not use that type of language. Secondly, the person accused of the offence needs to have either intended that his language or behaviour would stir up hatred against others or for it to have been likely that his actions would have that effect. Comedians do not intend to stir up hatred and their performances are not likely to do so. The third safeguard is that it is about stirring up hatred. This is a high threshold. Hatred is about intense dislike. It is not about ridicule or contempt.
	The hatred also needs to be directed against a group of people, that is against a community defined by its religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. It is not about protecting individuals and it is not about protecting their beliefs. It is not, despite what some might say, a new blasphemy law. Next, the Bill does not criminalise anything done in a person's home. It will not catch what is said at a private occasion in somebody's home no matter how offensive it might be. Finally, the prosecution of any of the offences proposed in the Bill requires the consent of the Attorney-General. This is an important safeguard that will ensure that only the most serious cases come before the courts. The Attorney-General's consent is, of course, in addition to the Crown Prosecution Service's public interest and evidential tests—

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his summary of the nature of the Bill, some parts of which will no doubt be challenged in the debate, but can he at this early stage help us by telling the House whether the Government intend to introduce any definitions of the many uncertain terms on which he spoke?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in relation to words such as "hatred", no; we do not intend to produce any definition in relation to that because it is a word that a jury could perfectly well understand. As to "threatening, insulting or abusive behaviour", again we have no intention to introduce a definition because, again, that is something that a jury could perfectly well understand. As regards "religious beliefs", no, again, because that has already been defined by case law. A religious belief, to be a belief protected by the Bill, will need to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. The belief, in order to be a religious belief protected by the Bill, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity. So the answer is no; we believe the law has sufficient safeguards in relation to that.
	As I say, the question is whether we have achieved our aim. I have given the six reasons why I think we have achieved it. For all these reasons we think that the Bill will not have the impact on freedom of speech that opponents claim it will. The racial incitement offence which already exists has not had this effect although it covers not only Jews and Sikhs but also nationalities. I do not think that the impact of extending this protection to faith groups will be any different. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when considering the proposals—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I might finish this part and then deal with the noble Earl's question.
	When considering this proposal when it was part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, the Joint Committee stated:
	"We accept the existence of a serious, albeit limited, problem of incitement to hatred on religious grounds. We consider the measures proposed in the Bill are unlikely to give rise to any violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights".

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt so early in the debate. The noble Lord opposite asked for definitions and the noble and learned Lord referred to "a religion incompatible with democratic beliefs". Only yesterday the Home Secretary was saying that Sharia law was incompatible with democratic beliefs. So, if that is the case, surely that excludes the Mohammedan religion from inclusion in the Bill because the Home Secretary said that a large chunk of its beliefs is incompatible with a democratic society.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, what I said in relation to that was that in a democratic society certain religious beliefs—for example, those involving the abuse of children—would not be given credence because they would not have the dignity that should be given to religious beliefs. I do not think for one moment the fact that Sharia law is something we would not necessarily incorporate into our law means that the Muslim or Islamic faith is not a religion we would express as being acceptable in a democracy. There are two different issues there.
	As the Joint Committee said, the Human Rights Act is not infringed. It would, in any event, prevent the authorities and the courts from applying the new offence in a way that breached rights under the European convention, such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and a religion under Article 9, which has been held to include the right to proselytise, and freedom of expression under Article 10.
	There are two differences in the way in which the Bill comes before the House. As noble Lords will know, the provisions have come before the House on previous occasions. First, I remind your Lordships that there was a specific commitment in my party's manifesto during the course of the last election to give people of all faiths protection from incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. The electorate has clearly signalled its support for that manifesto and that is why we have moved quickly to introduce the Bill in this Session. Secondly, the proposed offences are now contained in a single-issue Bill. We have presented the measures in this way because of concerns expressed on the previous two occasions that incitement to religious hatred was somehow being "hidden" among other important legislative proposals.
	I hope that all noble Lords will welcome this change, which will mean that the proposals can achieve the detailed and focused scrutiny they deserve. Indeed, they have already had detailed and focused scrutiny in the other place. The comments made by Dominic Grieve during the Third Reading in the other place are worth noting. He said:
	"for the first time in my recollection, we can say that a Bill has had adequate scrutiny in the House".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/05; col. 658.]
	Before moving on to consider the provisions of what is a very short Bill, it would be useful to set it within a wider legislative context. This House has a distinguished record in supporting legislation that deals with the harm that hatred can cause to communities. As long ago as 1965, the Race Relations Act outlawed incitement to racial hatred. In 1986, the Public Order Act expanded the offences of incitement to racial hatred. These offences filled an important gap in the law that enabled people to incite hatred against other groups because of their race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin. The offences were needed because the law previously criminalised only incitement to commit actual criminal acts—it did not cover the more insidious behaviour of stirring up hatred against a group of people. Parliament at the time recognised that this was a gap that should be filled and that there was a clear difference between inciting someone to go out and assault a person and a more general incitement to hatred against a group of people. I think we would all agree that the offences have worked well and that they meet an important need, although that was not the universal view when the offences were first proposed.
	I have not heard anyone suggest that there are difficulties in the way the offences operate or that they have had a negative effect on freedom of speech and debate. Since the introduction of the offences, case law has deemed that Jews and Sikhs are racial groups and are therefore protected by the existing legislation. Again, I have heard no one suggest that Jews and Sikhs should not be protected under the incitement to racial hatred offences.
	As an illustration, it is perhaps worth reminding the House that the existing offence did not last year inhibit the staging of the play "Behzti", which is set in a Sikh gurdwara, and that the play was not prosecuted for inciting hatred against Sikhs, even though it caused intense offence to some Sikhs. I am sure that there are many other examples of works of art and academic and humorous publications and performances which have dealt with matters of race, ethnicity or nationality in ways which some have found offensive but which have not been in the slightest bit inhibited by the existing offence of inciting hatred.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, with regard to the Sikh play "Behzti", the net effect was that a mob stopped it being shown, and freedom of speech in this country was damaged because of it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I entirely agree, my Lords, but the one thing that did not damage freedom of speech was the incitement to racial hatred—the crime that already exists.
	More recently, in 1998, under the Crime and Disorder Act and in 2001, under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, Parliament recognised that a person's race or religion can be an aggravating factor when offences are committed and that offences which involve a person's racial identity or religious beliefs are more serious and therefore merit the creation of specific offences with higher penalties. Again, I think we would all accept that that is the right approach.
	Finally, this House has also recognised, in the area of civil law, that people should not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, first when approving the employment regulations in 2003 and currently in its consideration of the religious discrimination provisions in Part 2 of the Equality Bill. In doing so, your Lordships have accepted that it is wrong for a person to suffer discrimination or harassment because of their religion, just as it is wrong for them to be subjected to the same behaviour because of their nationality.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that there is some confusion on this point. The Government have announced a series of proposals to deal with the so-called preachers of hate and I hope that we shall get some detail about that. That was in response to a media campaign. Is it not ironic that today we are dealing with legislation that would plainly turn such a campaign into a potential criminal offence?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are not. The reason why there is particular focus on those people is because they incite hatred and violence, not because they are a member of the Muslim faith. That is the critical difference.
	I wanted briefly to outline the legislative context, because it shows that Parliament has decided in the past that incitement to hatred represents a gap in the criminal law and that it is legitimate for this to be addressed by legislation. It also shows that we have recognised that people can suffer harm because of their religious beliefs, that this is wrong and that we should make specific provision to cover such situations.
	I am aware of the concern that has been expressed by some that, even if the Bill does not limit freedom of speech in the way that has been suggested and even if it does not lead to prosecutions involving religious debate, it will have a chilling effect nevertheless on such activity. Again, I would suggest that those who are making these claims look at the way in which the racial incitement offences have operated since they have included Jews and Sikhs, and how the religious incitement offences have operated in Northern Ireland. There is no evidence that these have had a chilling effect on religious debate.
	I turn to the detail of the Bill. It consists of just three clauses and a schedule. Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule. The schedule amends Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to create offences which involve the stirring-up of hatred against groups of persons on the grounds of religious belief or lack of religious belief. It also amends the existing offences of racial hatred. The Bill therefore brings in the new offences by extending the existing law on incitement to racial hatred rather than creating a new, self-standing set of offences.
	I understand that this way of drafting legislation by amending existing law does not make it terribly easy to read, and I apologise for that. I have therefore arranged for a version of the Public Order Act, as it will be amended by the Bill, to be placed in the Library of the House, which I hope will help noble Lords in their consideration of the Bill.
	As I indicated in answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, the schedule does not define what amounts to religious belief. I know that this too is of concern to some noble Lords, but I point out that religious belief is not defined in the context of the religiously aggravated offences, which already exist, and this does not seem to have caused a problem. Religion is not defined also in relation to discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and, again, we are not aware that that has caused any problems whatever; nor are we intending to define what a religion is in the context of the religious discrimination provisions in Part 2 of the Equality Bill. It will therefore be for the courts, as they have already done, to decide what constitutes a religious belief for the purposes of this legislation. In doing so, they will take into account existing case law on the issue; for example, the case of Campbell and Cosans v the United Kingdom suggests that any religious belief will need to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. As I said in answer to the question of the noble Earl, the beliefs must also be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity. We expect, therefore, that religious beliefs that advocate child abuse or violence would not be protected by the Bill. As for groups such as Scientologists or the Moonies, it may be that the courts will decide that their beliefs equate to religious beliefs. However, we need to be clear that what we are talking about is stirring-up of hatred against people, not their beliefs, and that, just because people might have beliefs which seem objectionable, it would be wrong for the law to state that it was okay for hatred to be stirred up against them.
	The schedule also makes a clarifying amendment to the existing offence of stirring up hatred against persons on racial grounds. This will make it clear that material must only be likely to be seen by someone in whom hatred was likely to be stirred up.
	Clause 2 results from an amendment to the Bill that was made in the other place. It means that citizens' arrests cannot be made in relation to the offences of incitement to either racial or religious hatred.
	Finally, Clause 3 makes it clear that the proposed legislation applies to England and Wales only. Section 27(1) of the Public Order Act provides that the amended racial and religious hatred offences will require the consent of the Attorney-General, as I have already mentioned, before prosecutions can be instituted. That, together with the high threshold of hatred, means that spurious and vexatious cases will not come to court.
	In drawing to a close, I shall briefly touch on the issue of blasphemy, as I am sure it will be raised in the debate this afternoon. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear during Second Reading of the Bill in the other place that any reform or repeal of the law on blasphemy must begin on a considered basis across all faiths. Therefore, before we can take any action in this area, we shall need to undertake a proper consultation with the public and the stakeholders and we shall need to examine the issues in detail. In the light of that, we do not believe that this Bill is an appropriate vehicle for consideration of the law on blasphemy.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but he has not yet dealt with the point that I raised. Yesterday I asked the Government to inform the House of the legislation that they propose to introduce to deal with so-called preachers of hate. When will that point be raised in his speech? We have not yet heard the context of it and we believe that it is necessary to have the full picture so that we know why that legislation is not included in this Bill.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred to the oddity, as he put it, of taking measures against preachers of hate, on the one hand, and providing protection from incitement to religious hatred, on the other. I said that the distinction between the two points is that we are not taking these steps because of people's religion, but because, in effect, they preach violence. That will be contained in the terrorism Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, knows, draft clauses on that have already been published by the Home Office on its website and the final form of the Bill will be produced shortly, when it is introduced to Parliament—I think in the Commons. I cannot say more than that at this stage.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will help us with some examples of the kind of expressions of hatred that he has in mind. Many people are concerned that the Public Order Act would be able to cover the kind of matter that is being discussed. Often when one speaks to members of the Muslim community, they give examples which are blasphemy—the very matter that the noble and learned Lord is saying will not be covered because free debate is protected. What examples are there?
	This morning on the "Today" programme, the Minister gave an example of a poster showing a number of Muslim women wearing the burka and a suggestion being made on the poster that they may be terrorists because we do not know what is under their dress. The BNP was prosecuted, and prosecuted successfully, when it produced a poster of that kind. The case was taken all the way to the European Court, which found that the conviction was properly brought and properly founded because Article 10, protecting freedom of expression, was not undermined because it was so threatening to a certain section of the community. Why is the law as it stands not enough?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can give two examples of what I do not believe would be covered. The first is the example to which my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred: what Paul Goggins said on the radio this morning. The poster is headed "The Burka Bombers" and shows a picture of a woman in a burka. The text under the poster claims that Muslim women, including white converts, are being recruited by extremists and that the burka is being used to get round security. It says:
	"Who knows what they have under their sinister and ugly looking clothes—stolen goods, guns, bombs even?".
	I do not know the basis on which the noble Baroness says that the matter was successfully prosecuted, but the prosecution, in order to be certain of success, if it included white Muslims, would need to be under the incitement to religious hatred.
	I can give another example. The noble Baroness is absolutely right, examples are important. A Muslim cleric in a lecture to similarly minded members of the Islamic faith makes emphatic claims that sexual perversion is rife among infidels, there is nothing wrong with hating Christians and to be a good Muslim, that is something one ought to do. In my view, both of those examples are not covered by the existing law. That is why we need a law in this form. It is a small gap, but it is a very important gap. I believe that the debate should not be about whether we should try to capture that kind of thing in the criminal law, but whether we have succeeded in doing it in a way that does not have unintended and unacceptable consequences.
	I am sure that we shall have an interesting debate this afternoon and I am sure we shall have an interesting debate in Committee and in the later stages of the Bill. This is an important and controversial Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his exposition of the Bill, which, he agrees, is both important and controversial. I shall endeavour to indicate at least some areas where it may be considered controversial. However, before I do so, I should like to say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, an expert in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I have had the privilege of knowing the noble Lord for a long time, I think first as the rector's assessor to the university court of the University of Edinburgh. He was even younger then than he is today; and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, he has brought the Heart of Midlothian to extraordinary heights of success as a result of his chairmanship of that club.
	This is an important Bill. I wish to start by saying a word or two about questions of definition. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he was proposing any definitions. He is extremely economical on that front: no definitions are to be given. The noble and learned Lord knows at least as well as I do—probably better—that the provisions with regard to definition of words and phrases depend on the statutory context in which they appear. Therefore, to use the Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom definition in the context of this Bill is, to my mind, at the very least highly questionable. It was part of my responsibility to act for the Government of the United Kingdom in the Campbell and Cosans case. It was a question of whether their views on violence to children were properly religious or philosophical convictions—that was in the context of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the Bill is going forward with proposals on religious hatred without any definition or any attempt to refer, on a matter of definition, to any other statute—which it would be perfectly open to do. If the noble and learned Lord felt that the definition, for example, in any of the other legislation to which he referred were suitable for this, it would be easy so to provide. My fear is that, without such a definition, the Bill is open to serious misapplication to conduct which I think that we would all regard as proper conduct.
	The Prime Minister said quite plainly, following the events of 7 July, that the people who committed those atrocities did so in the light of receiving a religious teaching that is a perversion of Islam—not Islam; a perversion of Islam. So far as I can see, nothing in the Bill would prevent a perversion of Islam being just as much a religion as Islam itself. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, shakes his head. He will give a— what should I say?—non-controversial speech later. But I say this in all seriousness: it is difficult to say that a perversion of Islam is not a religion. If it is, there is the question of religious hatred in relation to the perpetrators. The Prime Minister said that such people who teach and glorify terror and who preach that it is lawful and praiseworthy to kill innocent people on the streets of London are "vicious and appalling". That is not exactly a description calculated to endear them to you; quite the opposite. Surely, that is an obvious stirring up of appropriate disapprobation of those people.
	It is apparent that the Government are now thinking of proposing to close certain religious establishments on the basis that that perversion of Islam is being presented to the people who go there. Your Lordships may have seen the moving description given by the widow of one of the London bombers of the way in which her husband's mind had been poisoned by his attendance at a certain mosque. That appears a clear example of a religious belief that has brought about conduct in the people who preach it and give effect to it that is properly worthy of insult and hatred. That is an important aspect of the Bill.
	The example given on the "Today" radio programme this morning is certainly covered by exactly the same proposal. A BNP regional officer put up a poster stating, "Stop Islam", along with various other things. We seem to be trying to gild the lily in a way that is quite unnecessary, when existing law makes adequate and proper provision for all the circumstances that one can see.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I add my personal sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and send my good wishes to her and her family. It is a privilege to follow in the wake of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I, too, look forward to the maiden speeches—especially to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, as the former chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do not agree with the opinion that was expressed by the committee just before the election and I hope that it might be reconsidered. I hope that she will make a major contribution to the debate in her non-controversial maiden speech.
	The aim of the Bill is to deter and punish extremists and fanatics who foment hatred against groups linked in the minds of the perpetrators by religion or belief. That is a worthy aim, but as it stands, the Bill is unacceptably vague and sweeps too broadly. It is unfortunate that it has been introduced so early in the Government's huge legislative programme. I was personally assured by the Minister before the general election that there would be full consultation before the Bill was brought back. The Government have not honoured that assurance. They have even threatened to use the Parliament Act if they do not get their way in this House.
	I hope that that does not mean that the Government have closed their minds to ways of radically improving this controversial measure. I see the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, wrinkling his magisterial brow. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, gave that assurance and she was most apologetic to me about the fact that, after she ceased to have responsibility, others had taken charge. But that was on the eve of the election.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for wrinkling my magisterial brow. I did not mean to and I did not aim to upset the noble Lord by doing so.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am never upset by the noble and learned Lord. However, what I have described is most unfortunate and if the Government have closed their minds, it would show a marked lack of respect for the House as a revising Chamber.
	We all agree that members of ethnic and religious groups need to be effectively protected against the kinds of group hate attacks that have increased since 7 July. As it has been said already, those attacks violate existing criminal laws. It is essential for those laws to be effectively enforced so that perpetrators are tried and severely punished. That is not happening and we do not need new criminal laws to tackle this serious social evil. What we need is the will, the skill and the resources necessary to apply the wide range of offences in our criminal code, including provisions dealing with racially and religiously motivated and aggravated offences.
	The new speech crimes proposed, like the racial incitement offences, are sweepingly broad. They apply to threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour, written material, recordings or programmes intended or likely to stir up religious hatred. Unlike most other serious offences they require no specific criminal intent. They apply not only to words spoken in public but also in private. They cover the electronic and print media, plays, films, works of fiction, political argument, preaching by priests and clerics, comedians and politicians. They are subject to very serious criminal sanctions of up to seven years' imprisonment.
	In seeking to criminalise the stirring up of religious hatred the Bill links vulnerable groups to religion or belief. In other words, it covers not only Jews as Jews, or Hindus as Hindus or Sikhs as Sikhs, or Muslims as Muslims, but members of these groups defined by reference to their religion or belief. It is that link, between protecting groups of people and protecting their belief and practices which gives the impression to those seeking to protect their religion against insult that the offences are akin to a blasphemy law writ large. It is that link which creates such difficult problems for free speech, because it covers religious beliefs and practices that should be open even to intemperate criticism.
	Religion and belief are concepts that defy precise legal definition. They concern matters of faith and philosophy and are strongly influenced by history and politics and by tradition and culture. The line separating religious beliefs from political beliefs is also blurred, not least because religion is often used and misused for political purposes. The distinction between stirring up hatred of someone because of his religious beliefs and expressing hatred of those beliefs in the abstract is a subtle one—far too subtle for many who support the Bill, including some Ministers and Members of the Other Place.
	It should cause concern to the Government, for example, that Sir Iqbal Sacranie OBE, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, still believes, according to his public utterances, that the new offences will enable Salman Rushdie to be prosecuted for publishing his novel The Satanic Verses.
	Freedom of speech, like equality and freedom of religion, is a fundamental civil and political right. Its protection is at the heart of our liberal democratic society. The right to freedom of speech means the right of everyone to communicate information and opinions without unnecessary state control or interference. That includes evil ideas expressed intemperately or in ways that shock, disturb or offend some sections of society. It includes insulting and offensive criticism of religious beliefs and practices—whether traditional religions or new religions or cults—provided it poses no imminent threat to public order.
	We should, as a great American judge famously once said, be:
	"eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."
	We all have multiple identities based on our families and kinship, our ethinicity, gender, sexuality, citizenship, nationality, language, religion, and political beliefs.
	If physical or verbal attacks threaten or harm the bodily integrity of the individual or threaten public disorder, they are rightly prohibited by criminal law. There is a wide range of offences dealing with harassment, incitement to violence, threats to the peace, and so on.
	The law goes further, as the Lord Chancellor has reminded us, in criminalising threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that stirs up racial hatred. That is justifiable on the basis that attacks on people because of ethnicity are attacks on their common humanity—their ethnic inheritance and birthright that is fixed and immutable. In general, there is no threat to the enjoyment of free speech in forbidding the use of threatening and other behaviour calculated to incite hatred against people because they belong to particular ethnic groups.
	The Bill would have been less objectionable to me if it had protected groups of people, such as gays as gays or Muslims as Muslims, against the stirring up of hatred and violence. It does not do so.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, argues that the present law on racial incitement discriminates in favour of Jews and Sikhs and denies equal protection to Muslims and other religious groups. With the greatest respect, that is not the case; and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, admitted as much during the debate in Committee on the Equality Bill. Jews and Sikhs are protected against incitement to racial hatred because of their ethnicity and not their religion or belief. Stirring up hatred against Muslims because of the Asian ethnicity is equally protected. There is equal protection under existing law except in relation to the obsolete common law offence of blasphemous libel, which protects only Christianity against gross insult and should in my view be repealed as the Law Commission recommended years ago.
	Because of the frequently repeated statements that the law does not give equal protection I drafted an amendment last time round, flatteringly referred to as the "Lester amendment", to make it clear that hate speech, where it is used as a proxy for race—that is, where the defendant pretends that Islam is a target whereas in fact it is the group's ethnicity that is the real object of incitement to hatred—is covered by race hate legislation. Ministers criticised the amendment as unnecessary and too complicated. I do not believe that it is too complicated for a jury to have to unravel the purpose of a given course of conduct and I believe that it would be helpful to make the law clear, and to remove the other new offences from the Bill having done so.
	The Home Office says that free speech is safe because it will not be unlawful under the Bill to criticise beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers by claiming that they are harmful, or to express antipathy or dislike of a particular religion or its adherents. It is unclear to me why such activities would not be unlawful. Such uncertainty is dangerous. Not only would it have a chilling effect on free speech, but it also raises false expectations for those who seek an extension of blasphemy law.
	The Home Office, like the Lord Chancellor, asks us to put our faith in the Attorney-General since he alone can authorise a prosecution. But I suggest that it is for Parliament and not a member of the Government to decide where the balance should be struck between free speech and unlawful conduct. The effect of enacting these speech crime offences in their present form would be to require the police to log and consider every complaint of an offence. The Attorney-General's highly political decision would be a source of mischief and resentment among extremists and mischief makers. No doubt a wise Attorney-General would authorise a prosecution only very rarely. Between 1993 and 2005, there were no prosecutions for incitement to religious hatred in Northern Ireland, where it is unlawful. But the Attorney-General's decision to refuse consent will be used by extremists as evidence of the discriminatory operation of the law and will leave embittered those whose expectations were not fulfilled.
	The Home Office has identified the perceived gap in the law and it is remarkably narrow. The Home Office gives these two examples. Example one: the leader of a far right group who speaks with followers in the back room of a pub encouraging his supporters to hate Muslims. But that example is the subject of a pending prosecution. The other example given is the radical Islamic preacher who circulates tapes to his followers encouraging hatred of Christians. That could, if necessary, be covered by a modest extension of the existing law.
	It is ludicrous to suggest that the new offences would have prevented the riots in the northern towns in 2001. There are plenty of criminal offences and police powers in place to enable effective action to be taken against extremist law-breakers. Finally—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am not speaking as a Back-Bencher and therefore I am perfectly entitled to make a full speech, if your Lordships please.
	We shall not oppose a Second Reading, but if the Bill is given a Second Reading we will move an amendment to cover Muslims, Jews and Sikhs equally. We will also seek to place a strong protective fence around free speech. Words, behaviour, and so on abusive or insulting to a religious belief should not be treated as giving rise to an offence unless they are intended or likely to incite violence against individuals who hold that belief. That will ensure that the stirring up of hatred against religious groups such as Jews or Muslims will be unlawful but that the stirring up of hatred against Islam or Judaism or any other religion would be unlawful only if it were likely to stir up violence.
	Broadcasting, plays, operas, films, novels and other works of artistic or literary merit and popular entertainment should be protected by the law against threats posed by the intolerant, the ignorant and the politically correct. There is also the chilling effect on free speech. We need to draw a bright line in the Bill rather than leaving it to the Attorney-General and the courts to draw the line.
	Soli Sorabjee, Senior Council, the former Attorney-General of India, gave evidence to the committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, as follows:
	"experience shows that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom of expression. Fundamentalist Christians, religious Muslims and devout Hindus would then seek to invoke the criminal machinery against each other's religion, tenets or practices. That is what is increasingly happening today in India. We need not more repressive laws but more free speech to combat bigotry and to promote tolerance".
	We should heed that wise advice.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, because of the position from which I was speaking I was perhaps unduly hurried by the clock, but I omitted to say that I would like to send warm wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in her present situation. We hope that all will go well.

EU: Turkey and Croatia

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg leave to repeat to the House a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place.
	"With permission Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the European Union's decision on Monday last to open negotiations for full membership with Turkey and Croatia. First, Turkey. Turkey is part of Europe. It was a founder member of the Council of Europe in the late 1940s, and was invited by the United Kingdom, France and others to join NATO as early as 1952.
	"The prospect of European Union membership was first offered to Turkey some 42 years ago. That promise was repeated by the Union in ever more concrete terms in 1999 and in 2002. In December last year, and again in June this year, a specific start date of Monday last—3 October—was set. By that date Turkey was required to, and had, introduced a further six laws and had signed the protocol to the Ankara agreement. In addition, the Turkish Government had actively co-operated to encourage a "yes" vote from the Turkish Cypriots for the Annan plan to reunify Cyprus. So, over this summer, there was understandable bitterness and apprehension in Turkey as further obstacles appeared to be put in the way, and as some in Europe argued that Turkey should settle for less than full membership.
	"The result was that nine days ago the European Union stood at a crossroads. It had to decide whether it would honour its commitment to Turkey and begin accession negotiations or whether it would turn its back on the Union's nearest and largest Muslim neighbour.
	"In the event, and after 36 hours of almost continuous negotiations, I am pleased to say that agreement was reached in Luxembourg to enable negotiations to begin. And, happily, by sticking to what I described as 'presidency time', we were able to do so, just, within the 3 October deadline.
	"The negotiations, which had begun many weeks earlier, were at times difficult and complex, and I am indebted to many heads of government and Foreign Ministers for the political courage they showed.
	"I also want to express my gratitude to EU Commissioner Olli Rehn and High Representative Javier Solana and their staff, and not least to Sir John Grant, UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, Sir Peter Westmacott, British Ambassador to Turkey, and FCO staff in Brussels, Ankara, London and many other posts for their sterling efforts to secure this profoundly important result.
	"And I am grateful to this House for the consistent, all-party support which Turkey's membership of the EU has for so long received.
	"There is no doubt that Turkey and Europe as a whole will benefit from this decision in equal measure. For Turkey, it represents another significant step on its long journey to becoming a fully European nation. The process will strengthen the wide-ranging reform programme already pushed through in recent years and it will give renewed impetus to further improvements to the rule of law, respect for human rights and democratic institutions.
	"For the European Union it means that a close partner will be brought even closer. Turkey has long been key to the security of Europe as a whole. Turkey's economy is one of the fastest growing in Europe; it is already a major market for European Union exporters; and Turkey plays a vital role in the fight against international terrorism, cross-border crime and drug trafficking. By standing by our promise to Turkey, we will make the European Union stronger, safer and more competitive.
	"But the decision on 3 October is even more significant than that. For more than 1,000 years, the boundaries between Europe and Asia have principally been decided through bloodshed and conflict. By welcoming Turkey with its large Muslim population, we are embarking on a new era in which it is manifest that Europe is not some exclusive Christian club, at best cold to its neighbours, at worst actively hostile. Instead, we are able to show that what binds this modern Europe together is a set of fundamental rights and freedoms combined with a common purpose, regardless of race or religion. This is a powerful message not only to the people of other faiths who live in neighbouring countries but also to the millions who already live within the borders of the European Union.
	"I do not underestimate the challenges ahead. Some of those challenges are for Turkey. Turkey, like all candidate countries, has to align its legislation with the European Union's. This is an enormous task, which is broken down into 35 separate chapters. They cover issues from justice and home affairs through to economic policy and the environment.
	"Some of the challenges are for Turkey's neighbours—Greece and Cyprus—as much as Turkey. The accession process holds out the clear prospect of a satisfactory resolution of a host of historic regional issues, including disputes over rights in the Aegean and over the reunification of Cyprus. Achieving these aims will require a positive approach by all concerned and a readiness to compromise. I have already spoken to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan about the circumstances in which he would deem it appropriate to restart his good offices mission in respect of Cyprus under UNSCR 1250. And I have also spoken to Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn about other measures which are needed—specifically the European Union's commitments to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.
	"And some of the challenges ahead are for Europe as a whole. This includes continuing in good faith to help Turkey to prepare for full membership of the European Union.
	"Equally it means setting out clearly to our own citizens why having Turkey as a member of the European Union will bring direct benefit to them. We need to show that the greatest threat to our European culture and heritage comes not from opening our doors to a vibrant, secular nation like Turkey, but from closing in on ourselves and allowing Europe to stagnate in the face of global competition.
	"Secondly, I turn to Croatia. At its meeting last December, the European Council decided that accession negotiations for Croatia should begin on 17 March. Croatia has made remarkable progress in recent years, and had been able to satisfy the EU Commission that it had met all the so-called 'Copenhagen criteria' relating to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which are a prerequisite to the beginning of formal negotiations.
	"There was however one issue still unresolved, concerning the Croatian fugitive suspected of war crimes, Ante Gotovina. So the Council made the start date dependent on Croatia 'fully cooperating' with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, in The Hague. In the event, it took until last Monday before the Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunal, Carla del Ponte, was able to say that such full co-operation had been forthcoming. The Union acted immediately in response by opening negotiations. I am very grateful to Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader and his government for this significant improvement in co-operation, which I hope will lead to the early arrest of Gotovina.
	"When the prospect of membership was first held out to Turkey, what became the European Union had just six members. Since then, the European Union has acted as a powerful magnet for countries seeing the benefits of membership from outside and wanting to come into the fold. Each successive wave of enlargement has strengthened and broadened the Union. Each wave has also demonstrated how the EU can be a great and powerful force for good in helping to spread good governance and human rights.
	"Former dictatorships in the West and former Soviet satellite states in the East have been transformed since joining the European Union, creating an ever-wider community of stable, prosperous democracies. I have no doubt that this same force for good will now benefit the people of Turkey and Croatia. I know the House will support every effort to do so."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this extremely important Statement. May I make it crystal clear at the outset that we are in total support of these negotiations for the two countries' full membership? We wish these negotiations to succeed and not to be unduly prolonged. When the Cold War was on, in the high days of NATO defence, we were glad to accept Turkey's contribution to the support of NATO's southern flank. Now we shall be glad to embrace Turkey in an enlarged Union, as soon as is practicable.
	Does the Minister agree that the Union into which these two countries are being invited by negotiation has itself changed, is changing, and must change a great deal more? Can he explain why, the other day, the Prime Minister was saying that developments in the reform of the European Union, to meet the conditions of the 21st century, had, apparently, stalled? That is depressing: we would like more encouragement on that. What is the proposed informal meeting of EU heads of state at Hampton Court intended to achieve? Will it be informal or is it to be termed formal, as has been suggested?
	Does the Minister agree that we must be open-eyed about the difficulties? All this will not simply slip through. To deal briefly with Croatia, there has apparently been a change of heart by Ms del Ponte, the chief war crimes prosecutor. Yet, as indicated in the Statement, Ante Gotovina is still at large. How long does the Minister think that the Croatian negotiations will go on? I shall come to the Turkish ones in a moment. Now that talks have opened with Serbia and Macedonia, are we right to assume that those countries are now in the queue—in the waiting-room, as it were—moving towards negotiations for full membership?
	The issue of Turkey's membership raises, and has already raised, fundamental questions. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Turkish economy, although dynamic, is different in many ways from many of the existing EU economies. One estimate is that 50 per cent of the Turkish economy is in the black sector and it will therefore be very difficult to liberalise, regulate or record in a way that the commissioners in Brussels will, no doubt, want.
	The Minister knows that Turkey stretches into central Asia and is a Muslim nation. Fundamental changes in the entire structure and direction of the European Union are implicit in eventual Turkish membership as we move away from the old dream of the European Union as a predominantly western European grouping, or even, as some have suggested, a Christian fortress. That dream, and the developments of it put forward by Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and others, are clearly phase one. We have passed that phase and are moving into a completely new era. Would it be more accurate to see the extension of the ideals and values of the European Union into a Eurasian union, because that is what it is becoming? Azerbaijan and Georgia are closely linked with Turkey and are, no doubt, also anxious to be included in due course. Does the Minister accept that that takes us into the heart of Middle Eastern politics? Turkey and its position are crucial to the entire Middle Eastern water system, to Iraq and to the oil production of Kirkuk. This is a huge new move that changes the nature and positioning of the Union.
	The Minister mentioned Cyprus. Are the Government of the Republic of Cyprus still insisting on full recognition by Turkey? How will the proposal that was mentioned in the Statement—that Kofi Annan will try to use good offices and so on—unlock that difficult obstacle? Can he say a little more about that?
	Finally, does the Minister agree that the commissioners in Brussels, who are well intentioned, must not be too heavy handed and make too much of a meal of these negotiations, whether in relation to Croatia or Turkey? Does he agree that, rather than dumping the entire acquis communautaire on Turkey, the time is long past when the acquis communautaire should be vastly refined, reduced in size and modified to suit the 21st century conditions of a more flexible Europe, and that that would make it much easier to embrace Turkey as we all want to see. Is he aware that we on this side of the House look forward—so far in vain, I am afraid—to constructive ideas for the reform of the European Union, which is at present in turmoil because ideas for the constitution have been rejected? So far we have been very disappointed, but perhaps the start of these negotiations will motivate Her Majesty's Government and the better brains in the Foreign Office to think more constructively about how Europe should go forward.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in welcoming this Statement I protest about one or two of its geographical inaccuracies. Turkey is not the EU's nearest Muslim neighbour: so far as I am aware, Albania and Bosnia are contained within the geographical extent of the EU and are both candidates for accession. Furthermore, I regret that there is no mention of the 12 million to 14 million Muslims citizens we already have in the European Union. The EU is not an exclusive Christian club now. It has a number of Muslim states in line for accession. If one takes Ceuta and Melilla as, in effect, parts of the European Union, Morocco may be considered the EU's nearest neighbour. Turkey is not as exceptional as we think. The European Union is committed to continuing accession. I am sorry that the Statement does not remind Parliament and the public that Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Albania, and perhaps Kosovo and Montenegro if in time they become independent states, are also in line for accession.
	Then there is the question of further enlargement, on which the Government ought to give us at least some orientation. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has mentioned Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. I am not sure that I regard transforming the European Union into a Eurasian Union, let alone winning a referendum in the Netherlands, France or the United Kingdom, as an entirely easy thing to do.
	The case for Turkey clearly has to be made both here and in Turkey. I have been struck, including in some conversations with Turkish colleagues in the past few days, by the fact that the understanding within Turkey of the implications of membership is still relatively limited. We on these Benches argue that Turkey cannot be considered a special case.
	In contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I strongly insist that for Croatia and Turkey, the same conditions that were applied to Poland and Slovakia, and which are now being applied to Romania and Bulgaria, should be applied in turn. Reforms not only need to be passed, but they should also be implemented, including in south-eastern Turkey. There are severe problems over Cyprus, many of which the current government of Cyprus, or Greek Cyprus, bear heavily responsibility for, but it would help in building confidence if the Turkish Government would reduce the absurdly large number of troops based in northern Cyprus. We cannot slide over the issue of minorities in Turkey.
	Conditions must be strictly applied to Croatia. If I may comment on another member government, I and many of my colleagues were deeply unhappy about the way in which the Austrian Government misrepresented the case for enlargement. The current Conservative Government in Austria has an odd, Habsburg view of history in which a Catholic Europe was saved by Austria from the Turks. Most of us—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—will know that the Poles saved Vienna from the Turks and that the Habsburgs were busily suppressing Protestants around the rest of Europe as best they could, which diverted them from saving Europe from the Turks.
	We wish to welcome Croatia and Turkey into a secular European Union—a Union with a diversity of faiths tolerated within it. To that, we welcome both on the same conditions as applied to other applicant states.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the fundamental proposition that we all seek the success of this enlargement over a period. Whatever has been said does not detract from that basic starting point.
	I shall deal with some of the specific issues and return to the bigger ones. There is much evidence that Europe will change during the negotiations that will take place. The period for the Turkish negotiations will not be less than 10 years. It is inconceivable that Europe—or Turkey, for that matter—will look exactly the same in 10 years' time. There will be a great deal of change, both economic and social. Like all those changes, it is entirely probable that the big movements towards greater social justice and compliance with proper codes of the rule of law will themselves have been resolved, or the negotiations will not succeed. I regard it as a changing environment in which we expect the process itself to lead to some of the advances sought.
	The periods of negotiation for others seeking accession have not been specified in the same way. In a general sense it may not be helpful to do so. The aim must be to try to get all those in the queue into a viable set of negotiations and to see whether they can be driven forward successfully and rapidly, without being so rapid as to run considerable risks with the future of the European Union.
	In the western Balkans generally, if I can group together those states that have been mentioned, we have welcomed the starting process—the official ceremony held in Belgrade, for example, and the arrangements that are starting in Serbia and Montenegro for a stabilisation and association agreement. All those are the beginnings of processes that are being sketched out and it is not helpful to try to guess the timeframe. Irrespective of what that timeframe may be, at the heart of our thinking is the desire to see the European Union become a larger prosperous democratic club governed by the rule of law. That has been the objective of all the principal parties in this House and in the other place over a period.
	As I said, I believe that the specific issues raised which Turkey will have to overcome will be overcome during what will be a protracted period of negotiation. They have not been set as preconditions for the beginning of those negotiations. That is right. It is right in the same way that overzealous preconditions were not set when bringing in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. They transformed because they were in a process of negotiation. That was how the job was achieved.
	I find it really hard to conceive of a process in which any aspirant member of the European Union will continue either to have a significant number of troops unwelcome on another European Union country's territory or will fail to recognise another member of the European Union. The negotiations will have to have gone dramatically wrong for that to be the conclusion. If they go that dramatically wrong, I suspect that everyone will conclude that, however industrious we have been in the process, it will have failed. But I do not want to speak of failure or encourage the thought of failure in that light.
	I will now refer to some of the bigger issues that both the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace, raised. First, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his geographical and historical lesson. There is nothing that the House likes more than an adult evening class during the course of an afternoon, and it is much appreciated. He quite fairly makes the point that there are about 15 million Muslims in the European Union now and they will also be looking at this process to see whether we have an open attitude to the combination of faiths that is beginning to build up this community of ours.
	However, as we go through these negotiations, we will have to stay focused. Were we to begin to envisage a very much larger European and Asian region, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, invites us to do, I suspect that we would so overreach that we would not deal with the details that now confront us. In those circumstances, the probability is that we would fail simply by our overambition taking us beyond anything that we can realistically negotiate. We should not go that way, tempting as it is to say that these boundaries have been extended considerably. We must proceed in the context of the current arrangements of the European Union with plausible candidates, over a reasonable bargaining period and with specific objectives, including all the objectives on human rights and other matters that both noble Lords have mentioned.
	I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about Europe changing and what sort of Europe we will be in. First, I suspect that not all of that will be resolved at the informal meeting at Hampton Court. Let me say a word about that meeting to clarify its purpose. It will be a meeting of heads of state and government—the heads only. They were intent on having a retreat-style atmosphere so that there would be a genuinely informal debate with a very small number of permanent officials there. There will be the 25 member states plus Bulgaria, Romania and, as observers, Turkey and Croatia. President Barroso and High Commissioner Solana will be among those playing a leading role in integrating the discussions. In my judgment, they will have to conduct their discussions in a way that reflects the current state of European realities, but with a look to the future on the basis that in 10 years' time it is hardly conceivable that Europe will look as it does now. The critical things that will be discussed at Hampton Court will plainly involve as much realistic thinking about Europe as it goes forward as is available to us at the moment, but the discussion will also be bound to be well grounded in the present position.
	Europe will benefit greatly from a further and detailed discussion of its constitutional and budget provisions—of making sure that all those who contribute to the budget are treated fairly, as we seek to be through our rebate and other mechanisms—and of a Europe which is no longer trapped by the antique provisions of the common agricultural policy. There will have to be all those considerations in the mix, because the aspirant nations will need to know that, at least from our perspective, that is the sort of Europe we want to see.
	I conclude by saying that all these processes, however intricate, signal a kind of Europe that looks outward, that is capable of economic and political dynamism, that is careful and respectful of the combinations of peoples and religious traditions that will become part of it, and whose security will be enhanced by having done all those things and by doing them thoroughly. That is why I hope that the Statement will commend itself to the House and why we should look forward to this as being something of a triumph for the UK's presidency of the European Union.

Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's Statement on behalf of his right honourable friend, and I give it every support, as I am sure most of us do. But I would like to intrude a personal note. I was chairman of the committee of legal affairs and human rights of the Council of Europe between 1991 and 1995. During that period the Council of Europe enlarged to 41 nations. Very much part of the role of the committee was to visit as many of the countries seeking membership as was possible at that time to assess whether at least basic minimum legal standards were being developed. The Council of Europe is a different body—I fully understand that—but at that stage Turkey, in particular, and Croatia perhaps to a lesser extent, felt that its future would certainly lie within the EU. As a consequence of that thinking the pressure on the committee and its chairman at the time was constantly to visit and assess, because the difficulty was that Turkey is instinctively and inherently a militarist country. Turkey comes from its basis in law from a slightly different angle to that from which we do. But it did want to change, it did seek change and during my time—which is 14 years ago—it was making change. So there is every hope for optimism.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the criteria that Turkey will have to face are pretty stringent. I take some comfort from the fact that it has already begun to face some of those questions with a degree of urgency. In the past three years there have been major reforms: the abolition of the death penalty; new protections against torture, including signature of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture; greater freedoms of expression, association and religion; greater cultural rights for Kurds and others; and this reform process is going ahead with some speed. I hope that the bargaining process over accession will give added impetus to all those things. Is there a good deal more to be done? Absolutely. Of course there is.
	Whatever Turkey's history in putting together a secular state in circumstances which historically might not have favoured that, I believe that we are seeing the beginnings of a transformation. We can either be active authors that assist that transformation, or we can cast it backwards.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, now that the Gotovina issue has been happily resolved with the most providential timing, can the Minister confirm that, although this is being announced at the same time as the decision on Turkey, there is no question of Croatia having to wait for something like 10 years while its membership is negotiated, not least because of the consequences of that decision there will be for the other former states of Yugoslavia?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have resisted the temptation to speculate on the length of time in which the negotiations with Croatia will take place. Given the historic passage of events, I merely observe that when Turkey first expressed a desire to join the European Union, Croatia was not even a country. These events seem to overtake each other in an extraordinary way.
	The decision taken by the EU on Croatia was not linked to the decision to open accession negotiations with Turkey. It is simply not the case that that happened. The noble Lord said that there was a kind of rumour to that effect about timing but did not make that suggestion. Over the past 12 months it has been clear that Turkey and Croatia are not linked propositions. Each is judged on its own merits and on the basis of separate and distinct criteria. The report on Monday by the prosecutor at the ICTY meant that Croatia had met the key condition, and that is why the decision took place on that occasion.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister accept our congratulations to the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary on the very skilful way he handled a difficult situation? Does he recognise that we all—Britain and the European Union—had a pretty narrow squeak last week and that we risked a decision not being taken, which would have had very wide implications for the stability of the Balkans and for the aspirations of a number of countries in the former Soviet Union? We must learn the lesson, surely, from this and get out there and explain the benefits of enlargement. It is a matter not only for this country, which has always been convinced of that, but for a number of countries which now have a very strong public backlash against enlargement. It is important to turn that round now and not wait until the end of the proceedings, when we may have a disaster on our hands.
	Secondly, I agree and believe that the Foreign Secretary has rightly spotted that the decision last week opens a new phase in the Cyprus problem, which needs to be followed up, but does the Minister agree that festina lente might be a good motto in this because the one thing we cannot afford is another failed attempt to solve the Cyprus problem? Until the government of Cyprus show a little more willingness to work within the parameters of the Annan plan, and to prioritise the changes in that plan which they would need to seek if there was to be agreement, it would be unwise to rush back.
	Finally, can the Minister say whether it is clear that if the chief prosecutor of the war crimes tribunal were to say—I hope she will never have to—that Croatia was not co-operating with the tribunal as was wished, this would lead to a suspension of the negotiations?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, as to the first question, it was a narrow squeak. When I have seen media accounts of negotiations in Europe I have always felt that there is a strange desire—which I do not wholly understand—to spend the last couple of days, up and awake and through the night, trying to avoid calamity. So it was on this occasion. I suspect that may be one of the characteristics of international negotiations, although it tries everyone's nerves to too great an extent.
	As to the second question, it is absolutely right that if we are to get people to understand the values of enlargement—the economic opportunities, the opportunities for greater stability and mutual defence in Europe—then plainly people will have to be very much more widely engaged and feel that they understand the issues at stake. We all have an obligation to ensure that we tell the story accurately, but in a way that is very much more outward looking.
	Thirdly, it is right to say—this was in the Statement of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary—that Cyprus will have to face the challenge as a nation of working out how to deal with its part of these forward looking negotiations. Just as Turkey and others will, Cyprus will have to engage again with Kofi Annan. I hope the earlier it is invited to do so the better.
	The final point is this. I do not know what Carla del Ponte's view of backsliding on that fundamental condition that was imposed would be. But my anticipation—and it is no more than anticipation—is this: since it was the fundamental question that had to be answered before the decision on Croatia could be taken, resiling from that decision would surely cast the process back. The international community would be bound to reflect badly on that.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the progress in the negotiations with both Croatia and Turkey and the positive tone of the Statement the Minister has repeated.
	I would like to ask a very specific question about Turkey, given that it holds a key geographical position in the Middle East and is a beacon of secular democracy in that region. Given that Turkey was a founder member of the Council of Europe in 1948—as we were—and has also been an active member of NATO, what is the Government's view on Turkey's full membership of the Western European Union where it currently holds observer status? Will this issue be part of the negotiations on EU membership?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I hope I can answer the question accurately. My understanding is that it was referred to in one of the 35 chapters as being an issue to be covered. I will check that and if I am wrong I will write to the noble Baroness to correct it.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement and the comments made by my noble friend a few minutes ago. I would like to ask a very specific question. He mentioned that Turkey will have 10 years of negotiation before it can be admitted and that it will be quite a tough road for that country. What specific help can the British Government give to Turkey to enable them to meet the 35 chapters?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, a great many bilateral arrangements exist—some under the security provisions through NATO, some under the generality of bilateral arrangements on political issues such as advice on policing, jurisprudence and the independence of the civil service. I answer this a little carefully because I do not want to suggest a patronising view of Turkey's internal affairs. But those are all areas where I hope that the exchanges that take place bilaterally will improve the generality of their arrangements and our relationship with that country. It is a two-way street. We both must gain out of it.
	We have been—as all parties here have been—deeply enthusiastic about trying to achieve this enlargement. It would be foolish in the extreme in those circumstances were we to do anything other than work on all of the issues that might be problematic. Having embarked on this, we must certainly try to ensure that it is a success.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the British Government are to be congratulated on achieving this settlement on Turkey during their six-month presidency of the European Union. Can the Minister tell us whether there is a special condition for Turkey that will restrict one of the principles of the European Union, namely the free movement of persons?
	Secondly, was it not deplorable that Austria at the last minute created obstacles which were not in the original criteria requested by the European Union? Most people thought that Austria's behaviour was disgraceful.
	Finally, I repeat the caution expressed by others about Cyprus. Is the Minister aware that among Turkish Cypriots there is a slippage of support for the Annan plan because the promises that they were given by the European Union over one year ago have not materialised? Their isolation has not been addressed by member nations of the European Union. It would be much wiser if the subject of the isolation of northern Cyprus were addressed first before the United Nations is invited to become involved yet again in the Cyprus issue.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, if and when Turkey becomes a full member of the European Union, its citizens will have the same rights of movement that citizens of member states have. Before then, they will not have such rights. It is probably worth recalling that, even today, people-trafficking from the Kurdish part of Turkey has been the subject of an extensive number of police raids, with the capture of people who have been accused of breaking the law. That will remain the case until the change-over takes place.
	I do not want to comment on Austria. It will hold the presidency next, and we will want to work hard to ensure that it takes over the presidency with as much positive sentiment as possible on the decisions that have been taken. I believe that we can achieve that. Austria fought a corner that I too believe was ill judged; it finally concluded that it should cease to fight that corner and now we must build from where we are.
	A comprehensive conclusion of the kind that Kofi Annan may be able to deliver is vital for northern Cyprus. However, we can do a great deal to ensure that the isolation of northern Cyprus does not continue in any case. EU Foreign Ministers have expressed a commitment to ending this isolation. At the April 2004 General Affairs Council, at the council's request, the commission produced draft regulations to deliver a commitment. Although they have not been fully agreed, the intention is to increase bilateral links, trading arrangements and the engagement with international organisations. All those elements are building blocks to overcome the bigger obstacles. I believe that if they are used effectively, then Kofi Annan's mission may not fail.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important that we do not go down the road advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, with regard to part of the acquis communautaire being removed as far as Turkey is concerned? I know that his motive for saying this—he is quite open about it—is that it would open the door to a general reprise on the acquis communautaire. But would that not lead to two-tier membership? Surely it would be against Turkey's interests even to envisage going down that road.
	Religious identity has been spoken about widely in terms of Christendom. Is not the principle of rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's in line with what Ataturk laid down early in the last century? A principle of development in Turkey—it is not a question of it being an Islamic country—has been the relationship between civic society and the religious foundations. That may be an odd point to make because we have here the exponent of inter-faith dialogue, the noble and right reverend Lord Carey of Clifton, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, and I know that the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Winchester would say that we must retain an established Church in England, with which I agree. But we can still see the dividing line which can demonstrate to many parts of the Muslim world that you can have a successful society which is not based on a theocracy.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I believe that there is no intention to do other than implement the acquis communautaire. One of the difficulties in answering the question about the length of time negotiations will take with Croatia or, indeed, anywhere else in the western Balkans, is because those same conditions apply to them. They apply to all the nations seeking accession. While I hope that the processes of negotiation do not become so overloaded as to be difficult to carry forward—I think that I am more or less quoting the noble Lord, Lord Howell—people should know what the hurdles are and what they must do to succeed. Those should be even-handed between nations.
	On the issues of religion, I do not know whether I can add a great deal more. The European Commission's 2004 regular report noted that freedom to worship was largely unhampered in Turkey, but that non-Muslim religious communities still experienced problems relating to their legal personality, property rights, training, education and interference in the management of their foundations. The report states that those problems would have to be redressed and that a new law which protected people in those religious groups would have to be in place. That is part of the discussion which will have to go forward, as will discussions on the problems of particular communities; for example, the Halki Greek Orthodox seminary has the right to be reopened, and that will be pressed. All these matters can and must be taken on board during the processes of change that Turkey must entertain in order to become a full member of the Union.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, while many of us think that, at this historic moment, it is going to be possible to settle these issues in the negotiations with Turkey—I am very confident of it—does the Minister agree that there is a risk of underestimating the effect of public opinion within the community? I know that he has referred to it. I was in France for the referendum campaign. A lot of people disliked Turkey's candidature there. I was in Germany for its election campaign and the effect was the same there. We risk underestimating some of the problems of adverse public opinion. We have failed to recognise them in a few cases in the past.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we must not underestimate public opinion. We have got to make sure that we work on it. The European Union's enlargement is dependent on people understanding that what is taking place benefits them. Failure to achieve that will always be a great liability.

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Second Reading debate resumed.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. While I align myself with them in agreeing with the Lord Chancellor that the aims of the Bill are laudable, I also agree with them that it is liable to have unacceptable consequences. If I may say so as non-lawyer, what the Lord Chancellor described as the "narrow gap" that should be filled seems to me, as I try to understand the matters, narrower than can be filled and the filling of it is likely to be very dangerous and to have a series of unacceptable consequences.
	The more I prepared for this debate, the more surprised I became that this Bill can be proposed at all in this form by those who carefully read—I am sure that its proposers have read it—the report of the Select Committee on Religious Offences 2003 and the debate on the Take Note Motion in your Lordships' House on 22 April last year. Among the speeches on that occasion, I remember in particular that of the committee's chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already quoted from that report the remarks of the Mr Sarabjee, the then Indian Attorney-General, and I will not repeat them, but they were one of many powerful notes in that report.
	Before I go on, I think that your Lordships would want me to note the absence from the House through most regrettable illness of our friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who was a member of that Select Committee. I anticipate that the House would want to send him its good wishes and its trust that he will soon be back on his feet and in good voice among us.
	It seemed to me prudent to take the opportunity to discuss the questions in this Bill with a friend and neighbour in Hampshire who is a distinguished Muslim lawyer and an adviser of the Muslim Council of Britain, but I was still not persuaded that the Bill was not likely to raise expectations among Muslim communities which the Government would regret having raised when they were not able to meet them. It seems to me—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I am not going to do more than mention it—that the Bill places the Attorney-General of the time in a most undesirable position of great complexity and pressure. If passed in anything like its present form, it will lead almost certainly to self-censorship on many fronts.
	The Church of England had ample experience in the last third of the nineteenth century of the taking of religious matters and religious communities to the courts. Neither the courts nor the Government, nor the faith communities, I submit, should be taking the risk that this Bill takes of placing the courts in positions of adjudication in matters of religion. So I find myself, with many Christian groups and with many of our secular groups—poets, writers, academics, comedians and a range of people—very concerned indeed about this Bill as it stands.
	On the Bill itself and its Explanatory Notes, it seems to me that Clause 3(3)—the powers for the Secretary of State in connection with the coming into force of the Bill—is deplorably widely drawn, especially in the kinds of circumstances in which we find ourselves today, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred earlier. These are not situations in which it is appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to have that kind of latitude. It is most unwise that they should want it and that they should receive it at a time when more than one faith community is feeling under pressure in this society and culture. I also wonder whether it is wise for this Bill to be brought forward in Ramadan.
	There are details in the schedule, to which reference has already been made, that seem to me to be stacked with potential for trouble, including the recurrent words "likely" and "any". In the terrorism Bill, published yesterday, it is noticeable that the drafting is a great deal tighter and less sweeping than the drafting in this Bill. Of course, it is the case, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier, that sharply, strongly expressed disagreement, ridicule or criticism, however painful to religious believers and others, is generally not hatred.
	With words such as "likely" and "any" in the Bill, it seems that it will be extremely difficult for the distinction, which he sought to draw, between people and faith to be upheld among those who might hope that they can make use of this Bill. I believe that it is much more likely to attract would-be martyrs of various sorts and that it will not achieve the ends that it seeks to achieve.
	As I understand it as a non-lawyer, the powers available in a range of statutes are sufficient to deal with what the Government, at certain points justifiably and at certain points questionably, judge they need to do. The really critical matters are care, respect, interpretive charity, learning to express disagreement within friendship and appreciation. I judge that this Bill, unless it is radically amended so as to change its character, will damage those matters rather than the system.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, following the genuinely warm welcome from the Lord Chancellor and the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I am tempted to dwell at some length on the success of Heart of Midlothian Football Club. It is still unbeaten and now tops the Scottish Premier League for the first time for years—and under my chairmanship. I feel particularly at home on these Benches here today because we play in maroon. Indeed, when the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, entered the Chamber, I thought he had added to the welcome by wearing the Hearts strip for the occasion.

Lord Carey of Clifton: My Lords, its Arsenal's.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, in preparation, I read the previous 10 maiden speeches made in the House of Lords—a peculiar form of masochism—from the noble Lord, Lord Alliance, to my noble friend Lord Moonie. Unlike the other place, where maiden speakers usually give a wonderful account of their predecessor and tours of their constituency, I notice that here maidens are punctuated by references to how pleasant everyone is when we arrive here. I can confirm that, particularly with reference to the staff and Members, including Members opposite—at least until today.
	However, there is one cautionary note. I do not want this to make me feel complacent. I still believe that there is a substantive debate on the role, powers and composition of the second Chamber of Parliament—and in that order—and I hope to be able to contribute to that. The Bill puts the spotlight on some aspects of those issues.
	I strongly support the Bill. The reasons for supporting it were outlined well by the Lord Chancellor. It may not come as a surprise to some of my friends who know me well that I am supporting a government Bill. But the Bill was also supported brilliantly in the House of Commons by my good friend, Frank Dobson, and he is certainly not a serial government loyalist. His article in the Guardian on 18 June argues the case exceptionally well. However, the Bill was also supported in a moving and highly articulate maiden speech by the Member for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik. He outlined how he is receiving hate mail and death threats because he is a Muslim, because of his religion. That is something to which we must pay attention.
	I heard the discussion on the "Today" programme this morning. I have heard the debate today. I genuinely believe that there is a misunderstanding on what the Bill is about. That was evident when James Naughtie—albeit he was educated at Keith Grammar School, like myself—did not seem to understand what the Bill was about when he was questioning the Minister. I remind the House that the Bill was in the manifesto of the Labour Party at the last election. It is specific and narrow in its scope. It received a substantial majority in another place. As the Lord Chancellor said, in another place Opposition parties accepted that full time had been given for scrutiny in Committee and on Report.
	This House has twice previously thwarted legislation. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, anticipated an uncontroversial speech from me but, with respect, the goalposts seems to have been changing. First, the opponents said that they agree in principle but rejected the legislation because it was part of wider anti-terrorist legislation. Then they said that they agreed now that the measure is separate but believed that one noble Lord had a better way of articulating, describing and undertaking it than the combined wisdom of the Home Office, parliamentary draftsmen and the House of Commons.
	On this side of the Chamber, I think that we can be forgiven for thinking that the legislation is being opposed, if not for the sake of opposing it, certainly for some other reasons. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I support the principle of the defence of individual human rights. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who rightly legislated to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic legislation. However, in my former constituency and subsequently I have seen growing concern that the pendulum may have swung too far, encouraged by some in the human rights lobby, which some have described to me as almost becoming a human rights industry. It is ironic that some of those who seem to defend the individual rights of accused terrorists are here opposing protection of ordinary law-abiding citizens from religious hatred.
	There has been recently an increasing challenge to the ability of the state to protect its citizens from increasing threats and increasing danger. We have a dual responsibility to protect all those who suffer or may suffer from religious hatred—not just Sikhs and Jews—as well as to protect our citizens from danger. We must not allow the pleadings of some within the legal profession, however distinguished, to detract us from that duty.

Lord Carey of Clifton: My Lords, I am sure that the entire House will want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on that remarkable maiden speech. The noble Lord comes to your Lordships' House with enormous experience. He was Member of Parliament for South Ayrshire and, later, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. He is an expert on matters as diverse as foreign affairs, defence and overseas development. As we all know, he was Minister of State at the Scotland Office. For football fans such as myself, I am delighted that he is chairman of Hearts and I wish him every success. I am wearing this shirt in honour of Arsenal, I am afraid.
	I am married to a Scot and I often tease her that the only difference between a Scotsman and a coconut is that you can at least get a drink out of a coconut. We certainly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will be generous at the bar. Even more importantly, we hope that he will be as generous with his time and his ability in speaking as clearly, eloquently and as intelligently as he has been. We look forward to more contributions of that nature in the days ahead.
	I should inform the House that I have to give a lecture this evening in Amersham and will have to dash away, but I shall do my utmost to return for the final speeches. If I do not make it, I apologise.
	I wish to begin my brief intervention by identifying with the Government's desire to oppose any form of hatred in British society. I echo the Government's intention to strengthen social cohesion and deepen harmony among the different and rich communities that express multi-cultural Britain. That is an honourable aim and, together with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I salute that and wish to embrace it with all my heart. However, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, I am troubled by the Bill and feel that, rather than strengthening the social fabric of our society, it will lead to weakening it. Indeed, it has the potential to drive a wedge between Muslim communities and the rest of us.
	My commitment and interest in inter-faith harmony and co-operation is well known. It began when, as an airman in the Royal Air Force in Iraq in the 1950s, I encountered Islam for the first time and began to understand it. That interest has continued throughout the years and I have built friendships with Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and other faith leaders. I continue to be involved in inter-faith matters, both in this country and abroad. I oppose the Bill not out of lack of sympathy, affection for those of other faiths or for what the Government want to achieve, but because the Bill is unclear, endangers civil liberties and raises unrealistic expectations.
	Central to law-making is clarity. A Bill should explain what it is seeking to do. Definitions should be clear and precise and there should be no confusion concerning its outcomes. I read the account of the debate in the House of Commons on 21 June and was amazed that the Secretary of State and others were unable to illustrate the gaps in the present legislation that would be plugged by the Bill. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having a better go at it than anyone in the debate in the House of Commons. Now, the Government may complain that we have wilfully shut our ears to their arguments, but at the very least, we should know what are the offences that the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill seeks to address. Failure to do so with precision and clarity runs the risk of misunderstanding at the least, and abuse at the most.
	I have already said that the Bill threatens civil liberties. British society is far from perfect, but our nation is renowned for values associated with freedom to speak our mind, freedom to worship and share our faith with others, freedom to argue, debate and challenge accepted conventions. The Government should be very worried that from many sections of our society—from actors and comedians, to clergy, church groups, community leaders and many others—fears have been raised that free speech and critical argument will be muffled if the Bill is implemented.
	The Government have already said that the Bill is intended to protect the minority Muslim community, as well as other faith groups. That is entirely laudable and I understand the concerns that many good Muslims have—although I remind the House that Jews are far more vulnerable in this country and in Europe than Muslims and they are supposed to be protected by existing legislation.
	Perhaps I may give a personal illustration of the kind of confusion that may arise if the Bill is implemented. Last spring, in Rome, I gave a lecture opposing the "clash of civilisations" thesis propounded by Sam Huntington. In the course of the lecture I was critical of my own Church, America, Israel in relation to Palestine, and also Muslim societies. Concerning the latter, I expressed my worries about the lack of democracy in many Muslim countries, restrictions on freedom there, and the failure of many Muslim leaders to condemn the theology behind suicide bombings.
	Those remarks were greeted with outrage from Muslim leaders around the world. I have been told that, under the Bill, complaints could have been made to the Attorney-General on the grounds of inciting religious hatred. I have no doubt that any careful reading of my lecture by a person of open mind would have led to the immediate dismissal of that complaint. But nevertheless, valuable police time would have been taken up by that kind of uninformed complaint. I was even named alongside others such as Polly Toynbee for the so-called Islamophobe of the Year Award by the Islamic Human Rights Commission.
	The defensive seeking-out of offence by such fringe groups illustrates the potential divisiveness of the Bill. I could easily imagine, under the Bill, fringe groups from other faiths and beliefs monitoring sermons in mosques and churches to try to mount a complaint under the law. One of the problems that could arise is that people of a less robust nature than me could be cowed into silence.
	My time has ended. Unless the Bill is revised along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, it will only lead to confusion, misunderstanding and further division.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on an interesting maiden speech. Let me be honest: I begin with a prejudice. I have always opposed the blasphemy Acts. They have proved to be irrelevant and they are cumbersome. Normal public order controls can deal with disorder at religious services or attacks on religion.
	The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is another form of the blasphemy laws. And as the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, pointed out, it will be a lawyers' paradise. But more fundamentally, I do not believe that religion is helped by the protection of the state in this specific manner. By its very nature, religion—whatever the sect or creed—inevitably produces controversy. Religions lay down moral rules about the status of women, be it in the ministry or society at large. They lay down rules and moral codes about sexuality and much more. Inevitably it produces argument.
	Religious groups should operate in an open society and define their dogmas and ideas without the protection of the state. It would force people to think—particularly about religion—and to justify their opinion in the open market place. I remind noble Lords that the Christian Church achieved its most notable success when it was persecuted by the state. My own creed, the Anglican creed, which has washed its dirty linen in public for about 150 years, has not suffered as a result. Certainly, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, pointed out, when laws were laid down in the latter part of the nineteenth century, it did not help the Anglican Church.
	I therefore deeply oppose this Bill. It will be bad for religion. We ought to look back to the early Church, to the time of religion's greatest success. As Tertullian said—I will bet that this is the first time that Tertullian has been quoted in this House—
	"The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church".
	So I oppose the provision. I think that it will be bad for religion—bad for Islam and bad for Anglicanism. It will be a hunting ground for fanatics. I therefore hope that noble Lords will join me in the Lobby in voting against the Bill.

Baroness Corston: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I do so as not quite the newest Member of your Lordships' House although I have been here for only four parliamentary days. I come here after 13 years in the other place as a representative of the vibrant and wonderful city of Bristol. Parts of my former constituency are certainly both inner-city and multicultural, and I learnt about multiculturalism from them.
	I also had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights from its establishment in January 2001 until the dissolution of the previous Parliament in April. I was gratified, as I am sure other committee members were, by the degree to which your Lordships' House relied on the committee's scrutiny reports in considering legislation.
	This Bill has had quite a long gestation. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 contained provisions to make the incitement of religious hatred a criminal offence. The Joint Committee understood at that time that your Lordships' House did not agree to those provisions because there had not been adequate time for consideration of the human rights implications, given the abbreviated timetable for the Bill following the Government's assertion that there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
	However, the Joint Committee considered during scrutiny of that Bill that the proposals on religious hatred were compatible with human rights. We were aware that the Human Rights Committee at the United Nations—in its concluding observations on the periodic report of the UK on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in November 2001—had recommended that the criminal law should be extended to protect people who are being subjected to harassment and attacks on account of their religion. We were also aware of the decisions in the Strasbourg court which held that the need to combat racism is a legitimate reason for limiting freedom of expression so long as it is proportionate to that aim. That proportionality test would necessarily need to be reasonably strict so as not to threaten freedom of public debate.
	So the introduction of the current Bill gave not only a more measured timetable for scrutiny and debate but gave time for the Joint Committee to enter into correspondence with the Government about these provisions. We therefore wrote to the Government questioning whether these measures were a proportionate response to a pressing social need.
	In essence, it was asserted in reply that the current offence of incitement to racial hatred in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 was necessary to combat racism, and the proposed offence is based on it. We were also reminded that the Attorney-General and the courts would have to act compatibly with convention rights in interpreting "hatred" and in regard to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17, which prohibits abuse of rights including the right to manifest religion without the risk of having hatred stirred up.
	Furthermore, the current offence of incitement to racial hatred which is generally accepted as being necessary to combat racism has been rarely prosecuted. There were only 44 convictions between 1986 and the end of last year. So there is no reason to believe that the current proposals would result in a flood of unwarranted prosecutions. The Joint Committee found the Government's reasoning persuasive and we concluded without a vote that,
	"the proposed measures appear to us to be unlikely to give rise to a violation of convention rights".
	One of the strongest criticisms of the proposals has been from the Rowan Atkinsons of this world who have argued that the proposals would make it an offence to tell religious jokes. I think of the late Dave Allen, who week after week would lampoon different religions. No one ever suggested that he was stirring up religious hatred. He was poking fun, not encouraging us to hate.
	Human rights are not the preserve of lawyers and not confined to judicial interpretation or the pronouncements of leader writers. Human rights can be based only on respect. I do not see how it is possible to have a society based on respect when hatred on the basis of belief can be stirred up with impunity.
	So if on one view, albeit the collective view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Bill is human rights compatible, the question remains, is it good policy? The Christian faith is protected by the law of blasphemy. For my part, one of the beneficial consequences of the implementation of the legislation is that the blasphemy laws could be repealed so that all faiths have equal protection. Through the development of case law, Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 has been extended to cover hatred against mono-ethnic religious groups; for example, Jews and Sikhs. So there is currently a gap in protection and most people have emphasised the lack of protection for Islam. But there are many other faith and non-faith groups which do not have equal protection before the law and I contend that they should.
	Having had the honour to represent a constituency of churches, chapels, mosques, gurdwaras, temples and meeting rooms, I believe that the stirring up of religious hatred is totally incompatible with the kind of society that we want to create. I am reminded of the words of Mahatma Gandhi, who said that the windows of his house were open to the religions of the world, but he did not intend to get blown down by any one of them. I think that he was arguing for equal treatment. So am I, and I am pleased to support the Bill.

Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am at one with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, in hoping that those who congratulate maiden speakers do not have their freedom of expression further curbed by the Clock. It is a pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. She has a long and distinguished career in both the trade union movement and the Parliamentary Labour Party. She is also a lawyer and has practised as such. She referred to her extremely distinguished career as the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in which she already will have met some of the Members of this House. We welcome her here and we welcome her intervention on this Bill. Those who ask for further speeches from maiden speakers will have an opportunity to tempt her in Committee and on later stages of this very piece of legislation, quite apart from other measures that come forward.
	I have no doubt that the Government are determined to see the Bill on to the statute book. If that is to be the case, I wish to see legislation that works. At the moment I have a doubt about its workability. I have asked this question before to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland—I am as sorry as everyone else that she is not in her place—and I did not receive an answer. For all his other claims to fame the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, does not have experience of being a judge in the Crown Court. I hope that at some stage in the Bill's passage we will receive an answer to my question.
	When the previous piece of legislation was being discussed in Standing Committee in another place it was dealt with by the then Minister of State Ms Blears, who said that the two relevant articles in the European convention were article 9 and article 10, on freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Of course she was right when she pointed out that the courts are extremely good at balancing such rights one against the other. However, that is not what the courts are going to have to do in this case, because the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court will have to consider both of them as against the facts.
	I remember that the last time we discussed the issue the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, quoted a case called Norwood. In Norwood, which was a prosecution under the summary provisions earlier in the Public Order Act, it was decided by the Divisional Court that the defence in Section 5 of being reasonable was a defence of being objectively reasonable and that it was one that would have to be balanced against the European convention.
	Another case, called Hammond, was heard before lay magistrates. The Divisional Court said that,
	"it was accepted that [Articles] 9 and 10 . . . did not, as such, provide a defence . . . under s.5 of the 1986 Act, but human rights considerations had to be brought into play in an appropriate way when the offence created by the section was looked at and when the facts as found by the justices were applied to it. It was vital to ensure that if, in so far as a person's freedom of expression was to be restricted, it was only to be restricted in a way which was compatible with the Convention. Thus the justices had to have Art. 10 and its terms very much in mind".
	That must be absolutely right. But the difficulty with the superior courts balancing these matters one against the other is that the district judge in Norwood and the lay magistrates in Hammond gave reasoned decisions, and therefore it was possible for the Divisional Court to apply its mind to the way in which they had treated the facts of the case as against the provisions of the European convention.
	That will not happen in a jury trial. Juries do not give reasons. They either convict or they acquit, and neither way does one know why they do so. Therefore, one can only look at the way in which the matter was summed up by the judge to see whether he directed the members of the jury correctly, unless, of course, they come to a perverse decision, which, in a case such as this, I should have thought was very improbable.
	Therefore, I want the Government to apply their minds to the following. If in Section 5 there is specifically a defence which has now been held to bring in the concepts in the European convention, why is there not an equivalent defence in these far more serious cases which are now in the schedule to this Bill? Why cannot we have a peg upon which the superior courts can hang their consideration of the European convention on the one hand and the facts on the other—in so far as they are able to discover what those facts have been held to be by the jury?
	As a footnote, will the Government please consider what they are going to do to help those who have to sum up to juries to know what to say about the tasks that the jury is to fulfil, because it, too, will have to balance the facts against these rights? It will not be an easy summing up to deliver. It is very easy to get it wrong, and it is a matter to which I very much hope the Judicial Studies Board will also apply its mind very soon.
	Therefore, I have a very technical criticism of the Bill. I do not think that it gives the superior courts a proper leverage on which to apply the two precepts in the European convention. Those precepts are absolutely essential and were held to be essential in weighing up these matters in previous cases that came before them.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, like every other noble Lord, I strongly oppose any incitement to religious hatred, but I shall focus on four problems with the Bill. The first is my fear that it will increase tensions between people of different faiths. That has already been one result of similar legislation in Australia, highlighted by Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee. In a statement entitled, "Why I've changed my mind on vilification laws", he claims:
	"This legislation is undermining those religious freedoms it is intended to protect".
	He is worried by a turning of the tables against Muslims, who, although they advocated the legislation and used it against the Christian pastor, Daniel Scot, are now finding themselves the target of alternative attention. He describes how they are now being monitored by Christians and how that has increased intercommunal tensions.
	Secondly, I was deeply shocked by the way in which the Home Secretary tried to make party political capital out of the opposition to this Bill during the previous government's attempt to push it through Parliament. I believe that the Home Secretary's letter to every mosque blaming the failure to pass this legislation on the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was deeply offensive, inappropriate, inaccurate and tendentious. Your Lordships will remember that there was widespread resistance from many Labour Party supporters, representatives of many organisations, including the National Secular Society, and the general public. Indeed, the massive demonstration outside your Lordships' House today by a wide cross-section of ethnic groups, including the African, Asian and Afro-Caribbean churches, many of them traditionally Labour Party supporters, proves that the opposition to this legislation transcends party politics.
	Such opposition is justified, for what is at stake in the subtext of the Bill is the threat to one of our most cherished freedoms—freedom of speech. Whatever Ministers may say, there is a real danger that this legislation will inhibit criticism of religion, affirmation of religious belief and satirical or comical discussions.
	In the real world, we are already witnessing symptoms of religious intolerance, intimidation, inhibition of expression, censorship and self-censorship. My examples relate to Islam and to some members of the Muslim community because much of the pressure for this legislation has come from them. Complaints have already been made to the police by members of the Muslim community, and those could escalate if this law is passed. The complaints reflect certain aspects of Islamic beliefs held passionately by many Muslims. For example, for them, a Christian statement of belief in the divinity of Christ is seen as blasphemous and offensive. In traditional Islamic law, blasphemy is deemed such a serious offence that it may incur the death penalty, as do statements which may be deemed to be critical of Islam and the Prophet.
	A number of serious commentators and academics have already been stigmatised as "Islamophobic". They include Polly Toynbee, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey of Clifton has made reference to the effects that he has suffered. Neither Polly Toynbee nor my noble and right reverend friend wrote or spoke irresponsibly or inaccurately, but both have been subjected to hurtful labelling and public, potentially damaging and intimidating stigmatising responses.
	Another example concerning the inhibitions of freedom of speech that the Bill may have is infringement of the age-old tradition of public preaching, following in the footsteps of predecessors such as John Wesley. An example was provided in a letter that I received:
	"For over 40 years, I have (with others) been preaching the Gospel on the Cornhill in Ipswich . . . About 18 months ago we were approached by Community Police Officers . . . my companion was called into the Police Station and . . . he was warned that preaching in the street was a delicate matter and if anything we said could be taken as racist the charge would be pursued".
	As it is the police who will have to take the initial steps of investigation, the argument that the final arbiter will be the Attorney-General is less than comforting. Academics, journalists, writers, religious leaders and others who wish to speak about religion may be intimidated and inhibited to such an extent that legitimate, critical discussion and debate may be stifled for fear that, however reasonable and important, it might give offence. That is particularly important because, as the proposed legislation stands, truth is no defence against a charge, nor is lack of intent to cause hatred.
	Therefore, I will strongly support amendments designed to clarify provisions for the protection of freedom of speech, and I suggest that that is all the more important following the terrorist bombings in London in July.
	The Prime Minister has rightly said that we need to work with the Muslim community to identify what went wrong and to try to prevent such attacks happening again. That will require complete openness in discussing religions, including Islam, and the extensive activities within Britain of international Islamist groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood Movement.
	I finish by quoting again from Mr Amir Butler because he was one who had originally proposed such legislation in Australia:
	"It is obvious that criticism of one's religion is likely to offend, but just as Muslims should be entitled to aggressively criticise other faiths, likewise those same faiths should be afforded the right to voice their concerns about Islam . . . Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?".
	I conclude: this Bill is unnecessary, contentious and potentially damaging to that most fundamental freedom—freedom of speech—in our liberal democracy today.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am against the Bill. I should perhaps explain that, while I am a member of the Secular Society, I have always supported the right of people who have a religion to practise it and to proselytise. That is not an issue here. Yet the Government have, in my view, failed to identify any activity which would be illegal under the Bill and is not already illegal under existing law. It is also draconian: the maximum penalty is seven years in prison, with prosecution thresholds very low. Most importantly, it could severely limit freedom of expression—both directly and through self-censorship, as people become increasingly worried about speaking their minds.
	In this respect I have a particular concern. There are a number of religions—and the fundamentalist strain of Islam is one—where the attitude to women is quite unacceptable. In this country, generations of women have campaigned and fought for their rights, which we now take for granted. We have equality laws, and a commission to enforce those rights—but the fundamentalist strain of Islam does not acknowledge that women have such rights. The more extreme versions condone violence against women. In countries where Sharia law is practised, young teenage girls have been publicly executed for "offences against chastity". Women are forced to wear the jilbab whether they want to or not—and many women do not want to, with all that it entails.
	In this country, when a girl pupil went to the High Court and won the right to wear the jilbab to her school, it was presented as a victory for Muslim women. Of course, most of us agreed that she should be allowed to wear it if she wished, but many Muslim women did not see it like that. One wrote to a newspaper columnist to say:
	"My sisters and me could always tell our Dad and uncles that we weren't allowed to wear the jilbab. Once the rules were changed, that excuse was not possible any more, so my sisters have been terrified into wearing this cumbersome and dehumanising garment all day against their wishes."
	It should not therefore be assumed that all Muslim women are happy to submit to restrictions in the name of their religion.
	I read the Q-News magazine, a very interesting Muslim journal. It sometimes has letters and articles from women, demonstrating that they are not prepared to accept the restraints imposed upon them within their communities. A recent letter talks of the terrible situation of women under male authority in much of the Islamic world. Muslim men, the article says, have so consistently violated their position of authority and leadership that drastic measures are now required for women to retrieve their self-respect and control over their lives. That is unfortunately becoming clear in Iraq, where the elections have been regarded as a great democratic achievement. Yet I notice that there were two separate queues to vote, one of men and the other of women—and all the women were clad head to foot in the jilbab. There was talk of an Islamic state applying Sharia law, and women are now having to struggle to retain the rights they had, even under Saddam, under the personal status law. That does not bode well for women's rights, and I understand a women's committee there has appealed to the UN women's committee for assistance.
	The point is that the suppression of women's rights is all done in the name of religion. Not all Muslims—or leading Muslims—feel the same way. Dr Zaki Badawi, director of the Muslim College, has said in a recently published interview—
	"The main development for the Muslim community in this country is that the traditional position of women will have to change".
	He has this to say about the legislation we are now considering.
	"Religious beliefs themselves should be completely open to criticism. My concern is only when they use an individual's religion as a way to prevent them holding particular jobs or going to certain places. This is a basic equality and anti-discrimination policy issue".
	He is, of course, quite right about that. We have already debated the Equality Bill, which is establishing an over-arching commission to ensure enforcement. That prevents discrimination—in the provision of goods and services, and employment on grounds of religion—in the way that Dr Badawi recommends, and has been supported generally. When I spoke on that Bill, I said that we did not need this Bill on religious hatred as well. If it goes unamended onto the statute book it will encourage those very fundamentalists who seek to maintain their misogynist approach on the basis of its being a religious requirement. It will strengthen their hand, as against those with the moderate and humane approach of Dr Badawi.
	Any attack on the way religion treats women will be regarded by some of these clerics as an incitement to religious hatred. This has already led to violence in the Netherlands, with the murder of the film-maker Van Gogh by an Islamic fundamentalist in response to a film about Islamic attitudes to women. The Bill should not pass this House as it stands.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that subsequent speakers will not take the six-minute time limit seriously. This is a Second Reading, where we have in this House no time limits, and it is terribly important that that remains the case. The Chief Whip was quite right to point out that if we all speak for six minutes we shall rise at 10 pm. Those who choose to speak for longer may therefore think that they are trespassing on the patience of the House. In that case, they had better be making interesting speeches, or the House will cease to listen—but those who are doing so should not feel the slightest qualms about speaking for longer than six minutes. Those who have something worth saying should not curtail their speeches.

A Noble Lord: Get on with it.

Lord Lucas: After that, I had better keep within six minutes. I agree very much with what all those who have doubts about the Bill have said. I see it as something which will increase intolerance and frictions between religions. Nobody has identified a particular wrong—or set of wrongs—that we have to set right that is not covered by existing laws. The definitions are extremely unclear, except that—as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out—we will now count Scientology as a religion. Scientologists are an extremely litigious set of people, so being rude about them will now become very dangerous.
	As my noble friend Lord Pilkington pointed out, religions are, of their essence, controversial. They hold views which span the entire political spectrum—and, if one looks in history, they have gone in for practices some way beyond whatever has ordinarily been politically accepted. I do not think that religions, of themselves, justify state protection. Nor do I think that the protection as a filter of the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, is one that we could or should accept. We are being asked to judge what is an essentially political crime. How can we accept a political personality as the one who filters whether, in an individual case, this is a crime? We have gone down this road before, and looking back I have grave doubts about whether making all of us criminals and then allowing a politician to decide whether we are prosecuted is the right way to proceed. It is certainly not in something which is so public a matter.
	I want to tackle a couple of remarks by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. He said that the Bill is about stirring up hatred against people, not beliefs. Again, he said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when discussing the new regulations about hate preachers that it is not because of their religion, but because they stir up hatred. This implies that we can make a distinction between a religion and its believers. We can do that in words, where it works wonderfully: I am sure we would all get an A-star if we had it as a GCSE question. But in the practical world where the Bill will operate, there is no distinction. We see this with absolute clarity when considering the case of a powerful God and a strong, well-defined religion that has no believers anywhere. Now, that God has no power; there is no religion with which we can interact. If such a God acquires a believer, that God's power depends on that believer. If he chooses Mohammed, he does pretty well. If he chooses a retired chartered accountant in Wimbledon, he is not going to get so far.
	Escalating that, we come to see that the only way in which an individual human being outside a religion can react with it is through the individual believers and their collective belief. That constitutes the religion. There may be a God of the Christians: I do not know. He may be the same God as the God of Islam and the God of the Jews, but how can I see him? All I see is an enormous spread of beliefs and arguments, stretching back through centuries, but giving me no clear idea of what the God or the religion is—merely what people have believed about him from time to time. So if I say something harsh about a religion, if I were to use intemperate language about, say, the Catholic view of contraception and the harm it does in the world, I would expect that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would feel that as a blow because I am getting at his beliefs. His religion is part of him and he is part of that religion. That is the way that it appears from outside. I can see it as no other.
	So to say that there is some way in which I can have a dialogue with a religion, that I can be as intemperate and hard as I like about a religion, and not be speaking against and hurting people who are of that religion is ridiculous. It cannot be so. We are effectively requiring people to be temperate and reasonable in all their transactions with religions and religious people. That is really saying that the whole world should behave like the House of Lords. That must be a good thing, but I do not think it is reasonable or proper.
	The Bill is a mess. I very much hope that through the wisdom of the many people who are taking an interest in it we will be able to sort it out to the satisfaction of ourselves and of the Government. I look forward to tomorrow, to a day when I will be able to go home at a reasonable hour. I shall sit down with my daughter and watch an old movie. It will feature two people, one large and one slimmer. At some point in the film, the large one will turn to the slim one and say, "That's another fine mess you've got us into, Tony". That is what I feel about the Bill. It is up to us to get us out of the mess.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I speak this afternoon as somebody who owned and ran two bookshops for several years. I am very concerned about the effect that the Bill will have on the book trade. The book trade is fundamental to the exchange and nurturing of ideas. This vital trade is under threat from several directions, but especially from the Bill. I am not alone in this belief. As many noble Lords will know, Pen, the Society of Authors, is running a campaign. Many authors feel as I do about this. I am not sure that the Government understand the role of the book trade in nurturing ideas and debate. I agree with Boyd Tonkin, who wrote in the Independent on 12 August that,
	"Whole decades can pass between one mention of bookshops by a British prime minister and the next. How sad, then, that Tony Blair should refer to the sale of literature only when he aims to censor it".
	The Bill is a large step away from freedom of speech because publishers and booksellers are at risk of being criminalised for their activities in publishing, distributing, offering for sale or even displaying books that may be seen as controversial, or even offensive. But in a society that values freedom of speech and debate such books form a vital part of that debate.
	Apart from books that have already been published and are available for sale, I am more concerned about the future effect that the Bill will have on the book trade. The woolly and ill-defined nature of what publications will be caught by the Bill will have a chilling effect across the book trade. Who would be willing to be associated with promoting or distributing books that might be caught by the Bill? It will mean that a bookseller will have to risk a criminal prosecution with up to seven years in gaol if he chooses to sell an item that later proves to be caught by this legislation. Alternatively, he can choose not to stock any controversial item that might be deemed to fall within the parameters of the Bill, or that might be deemed to do so after agitation by extremist groups.
	That will lead to us becoming a nation where bookshops' stocks are a bland mixture of books on how to boil an egg or mend a bike. There will be fewer and fewer books on the really gritty, difficult issues that society needs to face and debate. Big chain bookshops do not find such books very profitable and it will be far easier for them to play it safe and sell a heap of egg-boiling books rather than risk some outraged religious fanatic pushing the authorities to prosecute them for selling something he does not agree with. The small independent bookseller is facing enough problems just to stay in business. He will not be in a position to face such a risk.
	The British literary world was shocked by the fact that Orhan Pamuk now faces trial in Turkey for his descriptions of the Armenian massacres that occurred some hundred years ago. But under the Bill it is quite possible that a novel recounting a fictionalised version of horrendous events perpetrated by one religious group upon another could be deemed to be inflammatory. As a bookseller for several years, I can remember all too clearly the ridiculous Spycatcher débâcle and the speed with which Special Branch visited my shop on hearing that it had a copy in the window. If the Bill goes through as it is, with so little clarification of what may be caught by it, with no provision for what my noble friend Lord Lester called "immediacy"—the imminence with which something may have an effect—many more such visits will be paid to bookshops. Many books will never be published and debate will be stifled. That threat to free speech is far more dangerous than the threat outlined so far by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we had a Race Relations Act in 1976, and two more bites at the cherry in, I think, 2001 and 2003. Presumably we are having another go partly because the previous ones have not done what was required of them. What was required of them? We were told that they were to give British Africans, Indians, orientals, Arabs, Jews and any other race you care to think of equality of treatment in all areas of life. What these Acts have in fact done is not to give them equality, which is right, but, in some cases, to give them preferential treatment, particularly in the area of employment, where in some professions it is now well known that "middle class whites need not apply", although I am sure no such principle ever appears in writing. Not surprisingly, middle-class whites feel bitterly resentful, for their ability to earn their living in the profession of their choice in their own country is being undermined. Not surprisingly, they hate those whom they perceive to be a threat to their livelihoods. What has also happened is that employers are so frightened of being sued, that they dare not refuse to employ a person of foreign race however unsuited they may be to the job, and naturally better qualified applicants are resentful.
	I do not know whether that was one of unintended consequences of the Act, or whether those who stood to benefit pushed for it. If they did, I say two things to them. First, by doing that, you are admitting that you are not equal and need preferential treatment. Is that what you really believe? Secondly, you are responsible for any antagonism or hatred you meet with from those who are damaged by such preference as you are given. You will never cure race or religious relations problems by heavy handed legislation such as that was and this is. You will only make bad worse.
	Many of your Lordships are too young to have any idea how attitudes have changed in my lifetime. When I was young, Jews were beyond the pale. Roman Catholics were not much better and were not exactly welcome in a Protestant family. Muslims certainly were not welcome. As for blacks, Chinese, Arabs, Indians, I will not distress and anger my friends of such racial origins in this House by describing the views of them which were prevalent at the time, or the nicknames given to them. I think they know them all too well.
	Attitudes have changed enormously since then. Why? Not because of legislation. They started changing long before that. I think that it is because a number of thinking people prominent in public life, who are sometimes called icons nowadays, have given a lead, and over time others have followed. Time does it. The trouble with politicians to whom, we are told, a week is a long time, is that they want results yesterday—certainly before the next election—because they can think only in terms of votes. Change, which takes decades, even centuries, will not do, even if it is the only kind of change that is genuine and lasting.
	It is entirely natural to be suspicious of strangers and foreigners. It is how simple and more primitive communities survived. When I was young in north-east Scotland, people from towns and villages 20 miles away were "furriners". At a time when the minions of a laird were at war with your laird they were dangerous enemies. That is no longer the case; it was no longer the case then. I cannot help thinking back to the time many centuries ago when some French families like mine arrived in Scotland, and wondering how they were regarded by the native Scots and Picts. With deep suspicion I dare say.
	In this instance, we are dealing with human nature, and it does not change. We should try using finesse, not a bludgeon such as the Bill. Incidentally, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should distinguish between hatred, which wishes to harm the object, and intense dislike, which abhors but does not wish ill to the subject. The noble and learned Lord said that they were the same. They are not. Hatred is horrible; dislike is natural and often inevitable.
	With regard to the religious aspects of the Bill, many noble Lords who have doubts about it have said, or certainly will say, everything that there is to say—probably over and over again. I echo the sentiments, so beautifully expressed, of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
	On a lighter note, one thing worries me. For those of us who are blessed with a sense of humour, jokes are part of the oil that lubricates life. A few months ago when Ellen MacArthur had just returned from circumnavigating the world there was a lovely Matt cartoon on the front of the Daily Telegraph. It said:
	"Flat Earth Society issues fatwa against Ellen MacArthur".
	I wonder whether that would have been permissible under the Bill.
	I do not know how many members the Flat Earth Society has, or whether it considers itself to be a religion, but might not the Muslims take exception to "fatwa", and say that it was incitement to hatred?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, this Bill will give members of all faiths equal protection from incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. When such a provision was last before your Lordships as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, I said then, and I still believe, that in a democratic society everyone has the right to voice their opinion and to demonstrate. But human rights and freedom of speech must be balanced by citizens' responsibilities to others. No one has the right to incite hatred against religious groups and all faith communities deserve the full protection of the criminal law when their human rights are threatened.
	It is clear from the mail we have all received that many Christians are concerned that in some way they will be adversely affected by this Bill, but I sincerely hope that when they study the Bill closely, they can be reassured that their fears are unfounded. The provision is about protecting people. It is not about protecting a religion itself.
	Many letters quote the Australian experience, which has been mentioned in the House already today. The Australian legislation is different from anything that would come here. Any comparison shows that our proposed legislation is carefully framed to avoid the kind of abuses that are feared. Because of the fears expressed it is important to emphasise what this Bill will not do.
	It will not outlaw criticising the belief, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; nor proselytising one's own religion or urging the followers of another religion to stop practising theirs; nor telling jokes about religions; nor expressing dislike of one particular religion or its followers. Support for such a provision has come from ACPO, the CRE, Justice and the Law Society. Time does not permit extensive quotations from the impressive list of supporters, but I commend to your Lordships the excellent statement of last January from the Churches' Commission on Inter Faith Relations. That statement was signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, and by representatives of many other faith communities, including the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Churches, the Muslim and Hindu communities, the Sikhs, the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Buddhist, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities.
	The statement says:
	"The Bahai, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Zoroastrian faith communities as well as others are not protected from incitement to hatred in the same way as the Jewish and Sikh communities".
	It continues:
	"The current gap in the law is not only inequitable it is also dangerous. It leaves the way open for extremists to incite hatred of religious groups not covered by the law at present, setting one group against another in ways which could significantly undermine the good community relations, painstakingly developed by ethnic and faith communities in Britain over recent decades. Where this happens it is not just specific communities who are vulnerable—the bonds of our common society are put under strain".
	Critics of the proposed legislation have argued that race and religion have to be treated differently because people cannot choose their race as they can their religion. On that point I agree with the Churches' Commission on Inter Faith Relations, which said:
	"it is important to recognise that in the context of combating hate crimes at least, there is a significant overlap between racial and religious identity. The issue of choice of belief in this situation is an irrelevant one. This point is clearly understood in the context of the Northern Ireland Legislation and the recent legislation in Scotland".
	I cannot understand how anyone who is familiar with Northern Ireland, or who like myself, or the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who unfortunately is not now in her place, who were born, educated and grew up in the west of Scotland can have any doubts about the terrible nature of the cancer of religious hatred, which is called sectarianism when it is inside one religion such as Christianity, and the awful corrosive effect that it has on the whole of society.
	The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 provides in Section 74 for an offence to be aggravated by reason of religious prejudice. That provision was added as a result of an amendment tabled by a Liberal Democrat MSP, and supported by the Scottish Executive. It followed the deliberations of a cross-party working group convened by the Scottish Parliament to consider legislative and non-legislative measures to combat religious hatred and, in particular, the creation of a new category of statutory aggravations.
	As a Scot living in Scotland, I greatly welcome the efforts of the Scottish Parliament led by the high-profile, outspoken efforts of the First Minister in particular, to tackle sectarianism throughout Scottish Society. I believe that religious hatred cannot be adequately tackled without some kind of legislation. The legal system of England and Wales is, of course, different from other systems be they in Australia, Northern Ireland or Scotland. But it seems to me that the Bill is the correct road for us to follow at this point in our history.
	I have no doubts that this provision is needed to curb the activity of extremist organisations. ACPO has said that the hatred stirred up by extremists such as the BNP contributed to the Bradford and Burnley riots in 2001. It is also intended to have a deterrent effect. The Board of Deputies of British Jews believes that having the offence of incitement to racial hatred has reduced the amount of anti-Semitic literature. It will also remove the anomaly whereby mono-ethnic faith groups such as Sikhs and Jews are protected under the incitement to racial hatred provision, whereas multi-ethnic groups, such as Muslims and Christians, are not.
	It is to be hoped that the Bill will also reassure Muslim communities at this time when many of them feel vulnerable that they have the full protection of the law from any acts of hatred against them. Much has been said recently about the importance of signals to our Muslim communities. Well, this is surely the right signal at the right time, as well as being the right thing to do for the whole of our society.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, throughout my 14 years in this House, I have hardly ever mentioned party-political points.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness O'Cathain: No, my Lords, but I truly believe that the motivation for this Bill is purely party political and I wish to express my contempt for the behaviour of the Government. The reason the Government have brought this religious hatred offence back for a third time is not to tackle a real problem; it is to appeal to certain Muslim campaign groups. They think that they are placating a section of the population. It is all about votes.
	After failing to get religious hatred on the statute book in 2001, the Government left it three and a half years before trying again. It did not seem to be a great priority for them—until election time came around and there were panic-ridden predictions of a collapse in Muslim support for Labour. Some noble Lords may be angry at me for suggesting that the Government would dare to play politics with our civil liberties, but I have here a letter, which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that makes quite clear that this is precisely what they are doing.
	Timing is all. Shortly before the election, the Home Secretary wrote the letter—on Labour Party notepaper but calling himself Charles Clarke, Home Secretary—to mosques up and down the country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, blaming the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for rejecting the religious hatred proposals in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Some sections of the letter have already been read out by the noble Baroness, but it also includes the sentence:
	"They"—
	in other words, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—
	"bear the full responsibility for blocking this part of the Bill. I am sure that you and other members of the Muslim community will take very careful note of that".
	I find that astonishing. But that is not the end of it.
	It is illustrative of the division this law is already bringing to our national life that no such letter was sent to churches. Noble Lords will have noticed that, with some exceptions, most of the active support for this measure comes from Muslim groups, while much of the active opposition is from Christian groups. I fear that the battle lines are already being drawn up for how our communities will divide once the offence becomes law.
	This was not the first time that the Government had played politics with this issue. In January this year, Mike O'Brien, then an energy Minister, wrote an ingratiating article in the Muslim Weekly, boasting that lobbying from the Muslim Council of Britain was behind the decision to press on with the religious hatred law. "It was", wrote Mr O'Brien,
	"a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain".
	This is a blatant exercise in pandering to a particular special interest group. Noble Lords will have already spotted that Mr O'Brien is now the Solicitor-General and will have a key role in deciding which cases are to be prosecuted under the new offence.
	The Muslim Council of Britain continues to be the Government's chief cheerleader for this Bill. The Secretary-General of the MCB is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, twice honoured by the Blair Government for his services. I do not know how representative the group is; but I know that "Panorama" recently exposed Mr Sacranie—sorry, Sir Iqbal Sacranie—and the MCB as rather less moderate than we would like to think.
	Sir Iqbal was one of the joint leaders of Muslim protests against Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses. When asked about the Iranian fatwa calling for the death sentence on Rushdie, Sir Iqbal said:
	"Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him".
	When asked on "Panorama" on 21 August this year if he would still put pressure on publishers to withdraw the book if it was published today, he answered:
	"There is no law at the moment, sadly, that would enable me to pursue with a legal course of seeking its withdrawal".
	However, judging from his article in the Daily Telegraph on 14 December last year, it appears that Sir Iqbal believes that the religious hatred law would be precisely that law which would enable him to do so.
	Of course, if the religious hatred offence were to be applied evenly, as per the wording, Sir Iqbal could conceivably find himself on the wrong end of it, especially if he were to repeat his comments about the death sentence being "too good" for Salman Rushdie. This is why not all Muslim groups support the offence. They realise that some of their imams could be targeted for prosecution.
	There is a widely held view that the law will not be applied evenly. Many Christians fear that they will come in for much stricter treatment under the new laws than Muslims. They can give examples to support their claim. Christian street preachers all over the country are reporting that police are harassing them, ordering them to stop preaching, even though their actions are perfectly legal. Yet when Abu Hamza was thrown out of the Finsbury Park Mosque in February 2003 and began to conduct his meeting in the middle of St. Thomas's Road outside the mosque, the Metropolitan Police responded by sending over a dozen uniformed officers to guard the meetings, a privilege which lasted months and cost the taxpayer almost £1 million.
	This is a very divisive Bill. It will not, as some hope, improve community integration. It will work in precisely the opposite direction, setting religious communities against one another with complaint and counter-complaint. There will be fury when the Attorney-General decides to prosecute, and fury when he does not.
	I am a Christian, and as such I have a duty to explain the Gospel to those who ask me from time to time, "What makes you tick?" or "Why are you so committed to speaking on moral and religious matters?". If I state that as a Christian my life is a feeble and frail attempt to walk with and work for God, we may get into a discussion about whether there is one true God. I would never become belligerent or aggressive on these issues, but if I state categorically that there is only one true God, could I be prosecuted? What if someone feels very insulted by this? What if someone else is listening who strongly agrees with me and a dispute arises? Have I stirred up religious hatred? Can I be prosecuted? This simple scenario demonstrates why the whole idea of a religious hatred offence is a minefield and we should steer well clear of it.
	I hope that we will send this back to the Commons and invite them to think again.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the 20th century saw more Christian martyrs than the previous 19 centuries combined. Of the world's 6 billion inhabitants, more than half live in countries where being a Christian could cost you your life. By way of example, the systematic and routine imprisonment and torture of religious believers—Christians, Buddhists and Falangong—in China is well documented. So are the internment camps and forced labour camps of North Korea. Only last week, I raised with the North Korean ambassador in London the case of Moon Seong Jun, a 64-year-old Protestant pastor from Pyungan Buk Do, who is currently facing execution for his beliefs.
	Elsewhere, in countries such as Sudan, jihadists have attempted forcibly to convert people living there through bombing campaigns, siege, abduction and enslavement. Of course, many Muslim leaders reject that sort of coercion, but it remains an unresolved issue within Islam. Contemporaneously, in Western society 9/11, Madrid, Bali and the London bombings of 7 July 2005 have thrown into sharp relief the interplay between religious belief and out ability to coexist peaceably. How the great faiths live together and within a secular society is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. I therefore understand the reasons and motives why the Government want to try to address this issue. But as I argued in your Lordships' House in the aftermath of the events of 9/11, when the Government first mooted the introduction of the law on religious hatred, I do not believe that the straitjacket of legislation is the way to address these challenges.
	If the Bill becomes law, it could well have a deleterious effect, quite the reverse of what the Government intend. The law could be used as a weapon by different religious groups and by secularists and, far from facilitating more harmonious relations, it could undermine the good relationships that in many parts of the country characterise our faith communities.
	We should be immensely careful before instigating an era of self-censorship about issues that instead require mature and reasoned debate, but a debate that will inevitably at times be legitimately critical. To threaten sanctions of seven years' imprisonment on the basis of a law which could be open to a wide range of interpretations and is highly subjective would be a huge error. The very title of the Bill—Racial and Religious Hatred Bill—reveals an inherent flaw. Putting race and religion together in this way is a non sequitur. We are all born with our race. It is inherent and unalterable. Race is neither good nor bad, nor right or wrong.
	I have always believed that to subject someone to prejudice and irrational discrimination because of their race is wholly irrational and that proportionate sanctions should be available within the law. By contrast, our religious beliefs, if we have any, should be freely embraced and ultimately we can affirm those beliefs or walk away from them. The existing law provides all the safeguards necessary if criminal acts occur.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred earlier to my own faith. My late mother was an Irish-speaking immigrant, and as a young boy I went to a Catholic grammar school. As is the way with these things, as we walked home, youngsters from a nearby school would frequently taunt us and sometimes worse. Early on I had to develop a reasonably thick skin and learn to appreciate the importance of tolerance and respect towards those of other origins and other beliefs. I learnt that you do not have to hate one country because you love another, be it Britain or Ireland, Britain or Pakistan. I also had to learn to negotiate and how to defend my beliefs, and not to be intimidated into disowning them simply for expedient reasons. Men and women are diminished when they are forced to collaborate in opinions that they do not hold, or told that they must believe that which is contrary to their conscience. In the United Kingdom we should be wary of trying to impose a blend of political and religious correctness. We can hardly legislate for that.
	In a very thoughtful speech—as is her wont—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, was quite right to remind us of the experiences of the west of Scotland. I would only say that my experience in Liverpool, representing part of that city for 18 years, was a very good one. The Mersey miracle that occurred there, where Catholics and Protestants, and people now of all faith, have come together in a spirit of tolerance, was not as a result of legislation, but through the leadership particularly of the city's religious leaders.
	Many in our British Muslim community come from Asian backgrounds. Many have suffered discrimination and irrational prejudice because of their racial origins. There are echoes here of Northern Ireland, where we rightly acted to end discrimination and inequality. If we were to properly address the causes of deep alienation on the back streets of Bradford, Leeds, Oldham and Burnley, we would be using our time more productively than producing legislation which many even in the Muslim community say is irrelevant. Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, the leader of the Muslim Parliament in Britain says,
	"This law will not protect Muslims",
	He cited the negative experience of Australia that has been mentioned earlier, saying that this had proved to be a "double-edged sword" and he rightly said that:
	"Muslims must build alliances with civil society to promote a fairer and more tolerant society in which everyone's views are respected rather than be seen to be undermining freedom of speech".
	By rooting religious freedom in the dignity of the human person, the claim for religious freedom becomes a universal one securing the freedom of all people of conscience—Christian or not—to embrace the religious belief of their choice. In turn, the elevation of religious freedom brings great bounty to society in the working out of charitable endeavour and the deepening of the common good.
	A society which promotes religious freedom will be enlivened and enriched; one which does not will decay. The limitation of free speech, an unwillingness to allow open debate and a reliance on punitive legislation like that which is proposed is not the way to achieve that objective, and I hope that the Bill will not proceed in its present form.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, it seems to me that this Bill is aimed at deterring extremes of fear and isolation. It is not about deterring rational discourse or even irrational discourse—provided personal hatred which puts people in fear is not in play. It could have deterred the culture which demonised Salman Rushdie on account of his portrayal of religious belief and made him a target for murder. This Bill is against the personal vilification of apostates. And taking cases is not the only or even the main point of laws to protect people against hatred. The point is to declare a norm, to put it on the statute book—to say, "we, as a society, defend freedom from personal hatred on grounds of what people believe. If necessary, our defence will go as far as the courts—but essentially the purpose of the law is to define our culture".
	The measures the Bill proposes need, of course, to be targeted—perhaps more targeted—and proportionate. We could go farther in circumscribing the powers of the Attorney-General, for instance, including an obligation to take explicit account of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the British Humanists Association—and I declare an interest as a vice-president—Justice and the Commission for Racial Equality have suggested.
	As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, of course the Bill affects freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. John Stuart Mill, perhaps the greatest proponent of freedom of expression in our culture, said:
	"For the interest . . . of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain the employment of vituperative language".
	When freedom of expression becomes intolerable bullying that puts someone in fear it inhibits their freedom of adherence to a belief as well as undermining social peace. In this way the Bill can also safeguard overt freedom of belief. Indeed, it is at least as much about freedom from oppression as freedom of expression.
	May I take your Lordships to Hopscotch, a charity which provides support and advice to Bangladeshi women in Camden, to help them integrate? I felt so strongly that it was a force for good that I helped to link it to the adult education college I used to chair. Many of the female staff and members of the centre, naturally, wear the identifying hi'jab—and some are now too frightened to leave the house. The director says:
	"Many women have had young boys spitting and swearing at them in the street. They are frightened. Their children are frightened".
	The members say:
	"My aunt was shopping in Queen's Crescent market when people started shouting at her and pulling her hi'jab".
	And,
	"It used to be about colour of your skin. Now it is about your faith".
	I am depressed by the argument that because we cannot choose our race and can choose our beliefs we can therefore drop our beliefs if we experience personal hatred. The beliefs of our forefathers, or family, or our whole cultural world? Why should we want a society where people have to do that to be accepted without hatred?
	What about Muslims who convert to Christianity? The Bradford police recorded virulent and terrifying hatred expressed against an "apostate" family, repudiated, of course, by mainstream Muslim organisations. But the point is that the police could prosecute only when this hatred erupted into actual criminal damage—the symptom, not the cause. As a member of the Metropolitan Police said to me last week:
	"If we allow hatred to go unchallenged we have created circumstances in which violence will flourish but its fomenters will walk away".
	Such instances as these are probably not within the experience of noble Lords, nor of the eloquent and cultivated protesters against the Bill. Almost by definition, they occur in uncultivated environments. Personal hatred on grounds of belief is not part of civilised behaviour. It may not happen to Rowan Atkinson and David Pannick QC. It is not at all the same as causing offence. It is frightening hatred against people. It is felt by the woman in the hi'jab, alone, spat on while wheeling the pushchair with her baby in it home from the supermarket. The two splendid maiden speeches by my noble friends Lady Corston and Lord Foulkes, in touch as they have been with constituents, are also important, exactly because of that.
	But to send a clear signal that the Bill is to protect people, not thought, we must drop the blasphemy law. Even if it cannot be done in this Bill, we need a commitment from my noble friend that it will be undertaken. The blasphemy law undermines the central concept of this Bill, that it is the person who is protected and not the belief.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I should say at the outset that it is pointless to say that the Bill will not affect freedom of speech, that it will not affect frank and full discussion between peoples of different ideas, and that it will not affect the telling of jokes. I do not believe that and I would be surprised if any of your Lordships firmly believed that. Very soon, people will become afraid that it might lead to something. Where is the objective standard for these matters? Only the Attorney-General will tell us what is right and what is wrong.
	I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who said that not many of us have had experience of being shouted at, vilified and having things thrown at them. I have been a victim of all those things. I can tell the noble Baroness that Bangladeshi women in east London were also victims of that sort of behaviour before they started wearing the hijab. The hijab has not been with us for ever. The mothers of these girls now wearing the hijab did not wear it; nor did their grandmothers—to whose generation I belong—wear the hijab. It is a new development. The wearing of long beards and white caps are also new developments in the community. I suggest that 9/11 made Muslims much more empowered, perhaps in the wrong way. We have seen a moving of the goalposts within the Muslim community since 9/11. It is all around us and we see it every day.
	Let me say something about my personal upbringing. I was born and brought up in Lahore with two boys—brothers—of my age. Their grandmother was the nearest thing I had to a grandmother; I believed that their mother was my real aunt and I went to the place of worship with her—she went to the Imambara; she was a Shia Muslim—and my mother said nothing. My mother took me to the temple and she took me to the Imambara. I did not realise until I was much older that she was not my real aunt. Today, a girl who sometimes comes to help me with the cooking—a very good cook—will not drink water in my house because, she says, we are unclean as we are not Muslims. Things have changed so much. Things which we never thought we would see in our lives have come about.
	People talk about Islamophobia; I call it victim culture. The more you say that you are the victim of Islamophobia, the more it takes the burden from you to do something about your own condition—somebody else is responsible; somebody else is making you underachieve. There is great underachievement in the Muslim community, and that is a key issue. If the Government want to do something for the Muslim community, they should help the Muslims—young Muslims—to achieve; to become part of society as a whole and to feel empowered by that involvement. That is what we should be aiming at, not the separation being proposed.
	Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed has recently written a book in which he shows how pandering to group rights leads to more and more separateness. This is exactly what we are doing today. We are saying to groups, "You have special rights. You are special people". That not only upsets the majority but says to them, "Right, we will live in our house, you will live in yours. We do not want to be bothered with you". This is not my vision of society. My vision of society is that we are one people; that we come together. I cannot see any way in which the Bill will help us to achieve that.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, referred to the bombings and the fact that we have all been subjected to them in recent times. The landscape is changing day by day. Every arrest for terrorism happens to be of a Muslim. The four boys who committed suicide detonated bombs against Londoners—the same Londoners who marched against the Iraq war; who did everything possible to stop the Iraq war. How could they justify that? Will it not incite the families of those who died against Muslims? We are told that all terrorists happen to be Muslim but that all Muslims are not terrorists. That is true—all Muslims are not terrorists—but we need to know who supports the terrorists and who does not.
	I am the chairman of a radio station in east London which has had no end of calls from young people who support the suicide bombers. That is very frightening. We should be directing our resources at ensuring that young people, especially those from the Muslim community, have all the opportunities that can be given to them so that they feel a part of our society and not of some kind of separate cabal which says to them, "Kill yourselves and kill innocent people and it will take you straight to heaven". Religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else in the world. Does anyone really believe that this piddling little effort will do anything other than separate us all? It will not stop anyone hating anyone else. The only message it will send to all of us is, "Stay among your own kind. Do not bother with the others".
	On a previous occasion I spoke about my vision of society and how strange it was that the Sikhs were treated as another ethnic group. They are converted from the Hindus—there is no question of that; it is an historical fact—but I have received a very nasty piece of information from the Sikh Federation. It said that Sikhs are not Hindus—I know that—and Sikhs do not worship idols as Hindus do. Actually, we are not idol worshippers; we worship images of deities. It stated that Sikhs believe in one God; Hindus also believe in one God, and if anyone would like a lecture on that I would be very happy to give one. Brahman is the one God—there cannot be more than one God—and the others are all aspects of that one true God. Meister Eckhart called it "The One", and we believe in that. They said that we practise a caste system and that they do not. How untrue is that? Ask any Sikh whether or not they practise a caste system. We are already starting along the road of vilifying one another and separating ourselves. I see this as an example. I am not sure that the Muslims need protecting. Would we not say at this stage that we need protecting from them?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the first of the two notable maiden speeches that we have heard today, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that there were enormous misunderstandings about the Bill. We have heard a great many of them in the speeches so far, not least in the one to which we have just listened from the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. She believes—at the same time, apparently—that it is a piddling little effort but that it will also seriously undermine our ability to conduct rational discussions about religious matters. I do not see how you can hold that both of these things are true.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Avebury: No, my Lords, because everyone is supposed to stick to six minutes. Oh, all right, carry on.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, if you say something very specific it has to be answered. The Bill will stop discussion and so on but it will not stop the hatred. That is what I am saying.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that it would stop discussion. That has been a theme running through a great many of the speeches today. Noble Lords have said that it would cause self-censorship and, on the other hand, that it will raise expectations; that it fails to identify conduct which might lead to prosecutions; that there is no distinction between beliefs and believers; that it will undermine relationships between faith groups; that it will jeopardise the book trade; and that all those objections to the Bill have not been discussed before.
	Yet as the second maiden speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, remarked, the proposals now before us have had an extremely long gestation—much longer than she commented on. A proposal to make incitement to religious hatred an offence was considered originally in the Public Order Bill in 1936 and again in the proceedings on the Race Relations Bill in 1965. It was discussed by the Law Commission in 1981 as part of its review of offences against religion and public worship, and again in a paper with the same title setting out its final views in 1985.
	Twenty years ago the Law Commission made a few points which are relevant today. It said that the concept of a "racial group" in Section 70 of the Public Order Act was closely linked to membership of a group which is distinguished by a common religion—a point that does not seem to have dawned on many noble Lords who have spoken today. The commission pointed out that some of the latter groups were protected already because they already had a common "ethnic origin". It said that if incitement to religious hatred should become a problem in the future—as it was not in 1986—it would be possible to amend the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred for that purpose. That is what we are now doing.
	Nobody has disputed the fact that incitement to religious hatred is now a serious issue that has to be tackled. The Government sought to do that in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001. At that time, noble Lords argued that it was an inappropriate vehicle for that proposal as it had nothing to do with terrorism. It was dropped only to be reincarnated in the Religious Offences Bill in 2002. That Bill was referred by the House to a Select Committee on Religious Offences, which spent almost a year taking evidence from representatives of the Home Office, the Attorney-General, the DPP and all major religions, including secularists. I wonder how many noble Lords who have misunderstood the nature of these proposals bothered to read the report of the Select Committee. The committee reported in April 2003 and its report was considered on the Floor of the House a year later, in April 2004.
	Finally, most of the speeches in the debate at Second Reading of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, just before the election this year, were about incitement to religious hatred.
	As the Select Committee noted, incitement to commit any criminal offence is itself a common law criminal offence, and there are specific statutory offences of incitement to commit particular offences such as provided in Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The committee agreed that there was no need for a statutory definition of religion, which presents no more difficult a jury point than race. Nor would there be a problem in accommodating a law on incitement with freedom of expression: the drafters of the ICCPR had placed Article 20(2) which prohibits incitement to both racial and religious hatred—both of them, note—next to Article 19, on freedom of expression. There would be only a small gap between incitement to commit a specific offence, and material which is or ought to be protected by Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, so the number of prosecutions under legislation of this kind would be very small.
	Apart from the examples already mentioned, and which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave, there was another interesting case which I would like to bring to your attention. A cleric who urged followers to kill non-believers, Americans, Hindus and Jews was jailed, first, for seven years for incitement to commit murder, and then an extra two years were added for incitement to racial hatred. If he had chosen his words more carefully and excluded Jews from this incitement, he would have been given only seven years and not nine. That is one of the answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whom I am sorry not to see here.
	Many cases come before the courts that are not covered by the aggravated offences to which noble Lords have agreed. There has been no discussion this afternoon. There was no problem about defining religion for those purposes. Apart from stand-alone offences of incitement to religious hatred, there may be other cases such as this one of the cleric who incited his followers to commit murder against members of a particular religion where an additional penalty might be awarded because of the nature of the religious incitement which accompanied the offence.
	After months of ill-informed comment by individuals such as Richard and Judy, Rowan Atkinson and Nicholas Hytner—who were given plenty of space on air and in the media to air their views and mislead their audience—it has been established that you can say more or less anything you like about people's beliefs. If noble Lords are not happy about that, I suggest that they look at a website entitled Ship of Fools which ran a contest to find the 10 most offensive and the 10 funniest religious jokes. The ones that were supposed to be funny were fairly offensive and none of the offensive ones was very funny. But the exercise served to illustrate that, however hard you try, you cannot devise a form of words that ridicules holy objects which would be liable to prosecution under the Bill. That is because, as noble Lords have heard several times this afternoon—from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and from the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsay and Lady Whitaker—the Bill is designed to protect groups of believers, not their beliefs.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that this would become much clearer if the common law offence of blasphemy were repealed, making it crystal-clear that this provision has nothing to do with attacks on doctrines or objects perceived to be sacred. I have had several attempts at abolishing blasphemy and in 2001 two of the right reverend Prelates who took part in the discussions on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill said that they would accept the abolition of blasphemy provided it was taken together with criminalisation of religious hatred. I hope that the Government will allow a free vote on the amendments that I will be tabling for that purpose.

Lord Chan: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has stated today, the Bill proposes a new offence, with a maximum of seven years in prison, of,
	"stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds, and . . . amends provisions relating to offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial grounds."
	Although the Bill aims to protect people of a religious persuasion—or none—the public view is that it also protects religions. That interpretation was the view among Muslims in north-west England after a meeting when the Home Office Minister with responsibility for race equality, Paul Goggins, explained that this law is intended to protect religious groups from extremists who seek to stir up hatred against them. He also stated that this law would be used to protect Muslims from violent attacks. Clearly, an understanding of the Minister's words and what is meant in the legislation are two different things.
	Arrangements to increase community cohesion are the real solution to the problem of violent attacks against Muslims. That includes education, housing, employment and a lot of other enabling arrangements. Opinions are strongly divided among people within the different faith communities, as some noble Lords have stated.
	The proposed legislation is not the way to deal with this matter. It is more likely to lead to resentment, harassment and an increase in hatred. The editor of Asian Voice, for example, wrote against the proposed legislation on 15 January this year and again on 18 June. The editor of Asians in Media also highlighted the dangers of the legislation on 4 July.
	Inciting religious hatred is wrong, but there is widespread opposition to the Bill. The current laws criminalising aggravated harassment, violence, threatened violence and property damage under Sections 1 to 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are considered adequate to protect Muslims and members of other religious minorities. I had personal experience of the protection of these laws because on 1 August, during the parliamentary Recess, I received an odd-shaped envelope at my home, containing a calling card with the following words:
	"Serve your country—burn down a mosque".
	This card had arrived at my home three weeks after an arson attack on the only mosque in Birkenhead following the London bombings on 7 July. The rest of the contents of that card are not suitable for quoting in your Lordships' House. I informed the police immediately; they called at my home for a detailed interview that afternoon and removed the card for forensic tests. The police assured me that if they could find the culprits, they would be prosecuted. I await further news from the police.
	Secondly, the Bill would lead to unintended consequences restricting freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This law could allow extremist members of one religion to silence those who hold opposing views. For example, an article in a church magazine that included a Christian's claim that no one can get to God except through Jesus Christ might be seen as inciting hatred against other religious communities by implying that their faith is false.
	Some people who supported the idea of this legislation in principle have changed their mind as they have seen the likely consequences. The fact that the Muslim Council of Britain asked in the Muslim Weekly of 8 to 14 June this year for the Koran and other scriptures to be exempted from the Bill indicates that it has also realised the possible consequences.
	Despite government assurances to the contrary, statements from the Bible or the Koran could cross the threshold of being "likely" to stir up religious hatred against those who have an extremely strong dislike of what they say. For example, if a moderate Muslim were to criticise aspects of Islamic law such as the death penalty for apostates, it could be argued that this is inciting hatred against those who hold such beliefs. Since the tragedy of the London suicide bombings of 7 July, followed by the abortive bombings of 21 July, it is crucial that the voice of moderate Muslims should not be stifled through self-censorship or fear of the Bill on incitement to religious hatred.
	Because of fears of the Bill curbing free speech and events such as open-air evangelist meetings and preaching in the open, a few hundred Christians assembled outside this building this morning and afternoon to protest and to make their presence heard.
	Thirdly, the Bill will open the way for vexatious complaints to the police. Although vexatious complaints cannot go to the law courts because the agreement of the Attorney-General must be obtained, complainants who go to the police about religious and anti-religious material written, spoken and broadcast in the media, can easily demand that the police do something about it. I gave one example of this type of complaint in March in Rochdale. The police will no doubt have to investigate complaints which the complainants feel have stirred up religious hatred. A good deal of disruption would be caused to the organisation being investigated.
	Finally, hatred will not be diminished by this legislation; instead, it will inflame hatred. In its current form, the Bill will not have my support.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, if I thought that the criticisms of the Bill that I have heard today were valid, I would not support it. But in the main, they are wide of the mark.
	One speech only criticised the provisions on our statute book regarding incitement to racial hatred. Yet most of the arguments I have heard today against the Bill would seem to apply equally to the incitement to racial hatred provisions if they were not already on the statute book. There is virtually no difference between the arguments that have been used.
	The provisions on incitement to racial hatred have had a beneficial effect on race relations in this country. I do not believe they have had all the appalling consequences that were alleged to be inevitable when they were first discussed in Parliament. I believe that they have set certain values for our society. The laws of this country should set the values by which we live as a sign to members of our communities what this country is about. I believe, therefore, that there is a gap in the protection given by the incitement to racial hatred provisions as regards Muslims—there may be others—who are not protected by them. Yet much of the abuse that Muslims in our country suffer is akin to racism. It is used in the same way that racist abuse is used against people whose skins are black. The Bill will give those Muslims the same protection that is provided under the incitement to racial hatred provisions. That is what the Bill is about.
	The racial hatred provisions have been effective. They do not give special rights; we are not talking about giving Muslims special rights but about giving them the same level of protection that exists for other minority racial groups.
	I have not heard any criticisms of the Northern Ireland legislation. If there were some, I am sure we would have heard them.
	Of course we all value freedom of speech. If I thought for a moment that true freedom of speech were to be damaged by the Bill, I would not support it. It is right that there should be serious criticism of religions, and that right should be protected by legislation. I am opposed to the attitude of some religions—not just one—to women and gay persons. I believe that all the major religions of this country were wrong about stem cell research, designed to tackle such conditions as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
	There are, however, two issues which are much more damaging to freedom of speech. One is the blasphemy laws, to which reference has already been made. I believe that they are weakening freedom of speech and that we should do away with them. Secondly, as I said in my earlier intervention on my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the way in which the Sikh play "Behzti" was stopped because of a riot damaged freedom of speech in this country. Yet do we hear much about that? No, we do not. It is a sad comment on our support for freedom of speech that we are not willing to speak up about that.
	It is healthy to poke fun at religion, as it is to poke fun at political parties. At the Edinburgh Festival in August, I went to see a Muslim woman stand-up comedian who made fun of her own religion. It was wonderful. I am quite convinced that that act would not be caught by the Bill. If I thought it would be, I would not support it.
	Some years ago, I was chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which looked at standards on television. We asked a group of young people what they thought about various film clips. It was the morning after Channel 4 had shown "The Last Temptation of Christ", a film that was seriously criticised by many of the Churches in this country. They sent petitions that the film should be banned before they had even seen it. I asked a young man, a devout Christian, whether he had seen the film the night before. He said yes, and I asked him what he thought as it had been greatly criticised by most of the Christian religions in Britain. He said, "My view is that Jesus can look after himself". That film, which he defended, criticised religion—it did not incite hatred against Christians. There is a world of difference between legitimate criticism of religions, whether humorous or not, and doing specific things which incite hatred against some people who have a religious belief. That is the difference and that is the key point which this Bill seeks to address. If you are against the Bill, you are leaving that gap in our legislation.
	Finally, I have three questions of the Minister. First, what do we do about "nutty" religions? I am trying to find a more appropriate word for it, but I think we all know what I mean by that. What do we do about some of the very odd religions? They have not been mentioned, except one which was mentioned briefly earlier today. Secondly, can we be assured that the Attorney-General will absolutely forthright, right from the beginning, in resisting pressure on him? I am sure he will be, but it is important that that is known and expected. Thirdly, I feel that expectations of what this Bill will do are a bit high among the Muslim community. Will the Government explain exactly what the Bill can do and what it cannot do?
	The Bill will be limited in its effect, important though that will be, and I trust that, in practice, there will be very few prosecutions under it. It will have a salutary effect in influencing people's attitudes, and that is surely the benefit that the Bill will have. Therefore, the Bill will be good for this country, but it will not damage freedom of speech.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I believe that this Bill is unnecessary, unpopular, unwise and certainly unclear, as the debate today has shown. Many of the Christians who are demonstrating outside today are looking for assurances that they can preach the gospel, but I know that they would be the first to insist that this is not just a religious issue, but about standing up as responsible citizens for society's right to liberty for everyone and freedom of speech.
	One should look at the wide coalition that has developed in opposition to this Bill. I did a double-take when I saw the Evangelical Alliance standing shoulder to shoulder across the road with the National Secular Society on this issue. Christians join society as a whole in insisting that robust, forthright debate and critique are essential in a free society. Many believe this Bill will seriously jeopardise such freedom.
	I believe the Government privately realise that the Bill in its present form is likely to cause confusion and are even now wondering how engage in post-legislative education both of courts and public on how to interpret it. It would be very unfortunate if the Bill opened the way for the courts to start having to interpret theological language, especially from religious traditions with which we are not familiar. The Church of England is bad enough in itself.
	The warning from Australia, where they have direct experience of similar legislation, is "do not legislate for hate, because it will inevitably create the very problems it seeks to address". Attempts at social engineering, especially restriction of ideas and freedom of speech, can end up undermining the very freedoms we try to protect. What is worse, it may introduce tension and disharmony, as has been alluded to earlier, to the very communities that we are trying to unite in this country.
	At the heart of such regulation lies an essential fallacy: that the state can control human emotions. The assumption is that if only people can be prevented saying hateful things, hatred will evaporate. The state may try to criminalise the public expression of hateful ideas, but it cannot ban the ideas themselves, which experience and history confirm usually proliferate under oppression. State criminalisation of ideas, including hateful ones, usually fuels their sense of legitimacy.
	If religious groups start to sue their critics rather than explore the comparatively demanding but socially healthy means of resolving conflict and differences—that is, free, open, robust, respectful dialogue—we are all losers in our society. Most people who hate something enough to express it verbally do not graduate to violence. If they do, I believe there is general legal agreement on all sides that the law is already adequate to deter and deal with both incitement to criminal activity and the crimes themselves. However, once we start on the path of "chilling" speech, exactly where do we stop?
	Despite government assurances to the contrary, many informed people on the ground are convinced that unintended consequences of this confusing legislation are likely to be rising community tensions and "chilled" neighbourly relationships. The prospect of campaign martyrs, alluded to earlier, will be heightened. One should note the scenes in Australia, where Christians and Muslims have publicly appeared locked in a spiral of legal claim and counter-claim, public protest and counter-protest. It is complacent merely to suggest that the law is set at a lower threshold in Australia. As we know, the line that connects criticism, satire, ridicule, vilification and incitement to hatred is very thin and progressive.
	There is a broad coalition of sensible opinion that is urging the Government to consider various amendments to the Bill. The so-called protection of the Attorney-General is of very little practical use. In any case, the guidelines under which he will operate have not been presented to the House and his decisions could apparently be subject anyway to judicial review, not least by those who feel failed by any future process.
	If Parliament is so confused about what the Bill will or will not do—and we need only to look at the debate in the other place for evidence of that confusion—what hope is there for ordinary individuals? All major religious traditions include strong language in their sacred documents. We are not surely in the business, even in the present climate, of removing the hard stuff and dumbing down. Certainly, those holders of religious faith would not want their sacred texts tampered with.
	It is ironic that a government who have unambiguously demonstrated their commitment to human rights should in this case be blind to human liberties. Christians are definitely not asking for any special privilege, but what they and others want is a clear and effective commitment by Parliament to maintaining religious freedom and freedom of speech for everyone, everywhere. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of all faith groups should remain free to express openly and publicly their rites, doctrines, beliefs and traditions without any fear of inhibition or chilling, and without any fear of prosecution, even if they may offend some others.
	Academics, writers, comedians and the media should remain free to express openly their views concerning religion, even when these might be considered offensive. That is how society works. Right and opportunity of reply still exist in this country, and the proper response to criticism is dialogue and persuasion.
	Surely the way to tackle religious misbehaviour is through community action and by the example of leaders in religious communities. We should deal with it by bottom-up, not top-down methods. In the East End of London, an Islamic institution was spray-painted by racists. The local priest and people set to, cleaned it up and repainted the house, the community making it clear that it was not prepared to tolerate such action.
	I repeat, the Bill is unnecessary, unclear, unwise and unpopular. Rigidity on the Bill will only add to the impression that Her Majesty's Government are not listening.

Lord Peston: My Lords, this is the most illiberal measure that has been brought before your Lordships in the 18 years I have been privileged to serve here. It is beyond belief, at least on my part, that it has been introduced by a Labour Government. The Bill is also irrational in that it is neither directed at, nor will it solve, the problems that gave rise to it.
	What it does is reduce freedom of expression—there is no doubt about that at all. Given the seriousness of this latest threat to the open society, I was struck by the rather casual way in which in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor admitted this. The apologists for the Bill say that the diminution of freedom occurs within very strict limits. I can only assume that they have not read the precise words in the Bill. Since the Bill can give rise to litigation, in practice, the media, not least television and radio, will proceed with great caution when it comes to offering programmes involving criticism of religion, either generally or specifically. It is na-ve to pretend that there will be no implicit censorship, as my noble friend Lady Turner has said.
	In this connection, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the Bill poses a threat to what, for want of a better expression, I call the established religions of this country. To someone like me, who regards all religious belief as failing to meet even the most elementary epistemological and deontological criteria, there will not be a problem. This is especially so since I, for one, have never gone from philosophical disagreement to hatred. I say that despite my concern about the damage done to young minds by proponents of such anti-scientific idiocies as intelligent design.
	But if you are a devout Christian—here I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chan—and wish to say that yours is the only true religion, which surely you are entitled to say—I would have thought even obliged to say—you can be caught by the Bill. The grounds would be that, whatever your intent, you are implying that other religions are not true. Similarly, Jews, who claim that they are the chosen people, which is stated quite explicitly in the Bible, must also be asserting that no one else is chosen. More generally, of course, I do not know how pseudo religions fit into any of this at all, or whether they will be protected from valid scrutiny. I am bound to add that I was not helped in understanding any of this by the refusal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give us a glossary of the relevant terms. How in any sense this Bill helps to promote religious tolerance is beyond me. Quite the contrary, it will exacerbate the problems that we have already.
	Viewing the subject from a broader perspective, I am not foolish enough to believe that we have no problems. However, I am certain, that the louts who attack people of eastern origin do not behave in that appalling way because of an antipathy to their religion. It is impossible to believe that such hooligans have any knowledge of Islam whatever. Those hooligans hate the people themselves and can and must be dealt with accordingly. As I understand it, laws exist to do that. I also interpose a thought for the Government to consider. If they are exercised by religious and racial prejudice, they might look again at the laws protecting private clubs, notably golf clubs, which are centres of such bigotry.
	I repeat, we have serious problems and we have a long way to go, but I am bound to add that over my lifetime, our country has shown remarkable tolerance of new arrivals. Not all, but most people welcome them and wish to see them fully integrated into our way of life. I had never spoken to a black or brown person until I went to university and hardly even then; my children's experience at the local comprehensives was quite different; and my grandchild's experience is even more so. When I was young, who would have expected to see so many people from the ethnic minorities on television or, more relevantly, in your Lordships' House or, what is dearest to my heart, as a majority in the Arsenal football team? I usually calculate that when there is a majority of black players we win. However, I wish that those who have recently become subjects of Her Majesty would be more appreciative of that.
	Returning to my main theme, none of those good things to which I have referred will be helped by this Bill. Instead, it will be a hindrance. If it were not for my devotion to the high standards set by your Lordships' House, my inclination would be to divide the House and decline to give this Bill a Second Reading. But I believe that we would be foolish to do that. We must scrutinise the Bill in great depth by tabling amendments covering all the likely problems. Of course, it would be better still if the Government, having listened to today's reasonable arguments, were persuaded simply to withdraw the Bill altogether.

Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, some years ago, in 1990, as the Conservative parliamentary candidate in Cheltenham, I had a rather interesting experience. On my first day as a candidate, an elderly lady approached me and demanded to know what exotic part of the world I was from. I replied that I was from the sunny paradise of Birmingham, just off the M6 motorway by the gas works. She was not very impressed by that answer. She made it clear that she could never vote for a black person to be her Member of Parliament. I was saddened by that observation, but carried on with my work as a candidate. About a year later, that same lady approached me and apologised. She became one of my greatest supporters. Did she change her mind through an Act of Parliament? The answer is no. She became more educated about me as a person and my background. It was a change of heart and mind. That cannot be done through an Act of Parliament.
	One of my favourite Bible phrases is,
	"wisdom is better than strength".
	Sadly, although this Bill attempts to apply the strong arm of the law, it lacks the fundamental wisdom to make it effective. Of course, I agree, as I am sure we all do, with the laudable aims of the Bill, but it is like someone trying to clap with one hand; one can see the effort but not hear any result. I believe that the Bill is wrong in principle, would be barely workable in practice and is actually not needed. It has also raised expectations among minority communities, who are likely to be very disappointed if they seek its protection. One thing we can guarantee in life is that the unexpected always happens. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which might increase racial and religious tensions.
	It is still not clear to me what will be the crucial test of an offence under this Bill. Will it be that the words uttered were intended to stir up racial hatred or that, as a result of words being uttered, an act of religious hatred followed on the part of a third party? The Bill will not be restricted to the intended stirring up of religious hatred, but will cover an act that is likely to do so. So there is an intent and "an act likely to do so". That will be good for lawyers because of the muddle, but it will not be good for community relations. The Bill is silent on resolving or clarifying the issue of intent. Sometimes silence is golden, but in this case silence is confusing.
	A number of Christian and other groups are concerned that hatred is not defined in the Bill, but it is left to the courts to define it. The courts may well use the dictionary definition of hatred, such as,
	"an extremely strong feeling of dislike".
	This means that statements from the Bible or Koran could cross the threshold of being likely to stir up religious hatred against those who have an extremely strong feeling of dislike of what they say. We need to build bridges between communities—not walls. I believe that the best way to target someone who hates others because of what they believe is through the force of argument, rather than through the law. Criminal law should be used to punish people who do injury to the person, to property or to the liberty of an individual and should not be used for those who simply offend one's beliefs or feelings.
	I maintain that it is important to distinguish between race and religion. In 1986, the Conservative Government rightly sought to criminalise people who attempted to stir up hatred on the ground of race, because race is not something that someone chooses. I learnt many things in Cheltenham. I learnt that I was virtually the only black person in the whole town, which was an interesting situation for me. However, it soon became apparent to me, and to others, that it was not the colour of my skin that was the most important thing, but the content of my character and what I was to achieve.
	An attack on race is an attack on the individual but, in my view, religious belief is very different. Although one can be born into a religion, it is still something one can choose to embrace or to reject. I happen to follow the Christian faith, but we know that there are many different religions with competing claims and lifestyles. It is entirely right to question and to challenge the principles of such religions in the course of debate.
	It is not surprising that Justice, the independent human rights and law reform group, fears that the Bill will increase intolerance, not decrease it. When other countries have introduced this kind of draconian law, support has increased for far-right parties. That happened with Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. Canada, Denmark and Holland also experienced that consequence.
	The Bill is vague; it is too wide and too ill-defined. It is great for defence lawyers, but I am sure that the Bill is not designed to line the pockets of defence lawyers. It is also not needed. That is the real sadness of this whole situation. Apart from the Public Order Act 1986, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the concept of religious freedom into British law. Incitement is already a recognised criminal offence. Judges already have the power to increase sentences if they find that religion is an aggravating factor in a crime. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 gives people extra protection against hate crimes, whatever their motivation.
	There is no clear definition of the word "religion" in the Bill. Again it will be for the courts to decide what is or is not a religion. By failing to define clearly what a religion is, we are leaving the way open for any organisation, even racist groups, to set themselves up as a religion and to seek protection. While appearing to be an attractive bait, the Bill hides an ugly hook.
	The very basis of our democracy is a belief in free speech. I still remember how hurt I felt as a little boy growing up in that paradise called Birmingham when Enoch Powell predicted that race riots would lead to rivers of blood in this country. His comments made me as a child of West Indian parentage feel unwanted as a person. Fortunately, I had a very strong mother who gave me the confidence to rise above such bigotry. But one of the reasons why Powell turned out to be wrong was because freedom of speech provoked vigorous debate and more tolerance as a result. Yes, more laws will create more offenders. But evil ideas should be met with challenge, not the silence of a ban.
	"Where there is no root, there is no fruit". The Bill lacks the fundamental root system to produce what the Government intend. Yet again the Government have over-promised and under-delivered. So many representative groups—in the public gallery and outside this House—are against the Bill for the reasons I have outlined. I know that the Government have heard them; but hearing is not the same as listening.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, the Bill is intended to give faith communities the levels of safety and security to which they are entitled in a diverse, civilised and democratic society. Put simply, it is about preventing people inciting hatred and providing all communities with equal protection.
	As has been mentioned by many noble Lords, the Race Relations Act 1976 protects the Jewish and Sikhs communities, and rightly so. Northern Ireland has religious discrimination laws. However, mainland Britain does not. This new law seeks to rectify this anomaly and to assure all communities, irrespective of whether they adhere to a particular religion, that British law does not discriminate or prioritise certain groups over others. Is it really conducive to social cohesion and to the common good to have the Muslim community feeling aggrieved by the contemporary laws?
	Since the terror attacks on 9/11 and 7/7, the multi-ethnic Muslim community in Britain has been under the spotlight as never before. As a community, we have been called upon to account for the actions of a radicalised minority who espouse a doctrine of hate and belligerence and who are as synonymous with Islam as KKK are with Christendom. We must acknowledge the current climate and act to eliminate this growing pathology of xenophobia right from the root of the problem. Inciting racial and religious hatred is a recipe for disaster and can cause civil unrest. Hence we must ensure that the very conditions which are conducive to creating a racial and religious melting pot are not allowed to come to fruition. Anyone who doubts these words can look no further than the appalling race riots in the north of England where racists actively stirred up riots by attacking the religion of the local communities, as highlighted by ACPO in the House of Lords Select Committee. Let us not forget that we have had an offence of incitement to racial hatred in laws in this country in one shape or form since 1936 when it was introduced to protect the Jewish community from the fascist activists of Oswald Mosley's Black shirts. It was needed then and it is needed now.
	Islamophobia has become a contemporary form of racism. We should not shy away from the fact that it is on the rise. Silence on the matter only indicates a sign of apathy on this most disturbing of developments. I recall that when I was a young man—not that I am old now, of course—it was all too common to hear a black person referred to by the "n" word. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said. We have the 1976 race relations laws which protect minorities. Likewise, in those days, Asians like myself were frequently called "pakis". One need not stop there. Derogatory terminology for women and homosexuals were in the not too distant past deemed socially acceptable and, indeed, in some cases one can argue it was encouraged by mainstream society. Today, of course, none of those offensive terms would be acceptable by the mainstream and we are better off for it. I ask only that we extend this positive evolution of the way in which we conceive our fellow citizens to enfranchise those who associate themselves closely with their respective religions.
	What critics of the Bill fail to recognise is that religions are increasingly becoming multi-ethnic. It is not only members of minority ethnic communities who are victims of religious hatred. White Europeans who have converted to Islam, particularly women who are easily identifiable as Muslims because they wear headscarves, are also subject to incitement of hatred. On what basis are white and European Muslims targeted if not for their faith?
	The existing laws are at best shaky in covering these people. Hence we must acknowledge that Islamophobia is a form of prejudice independent of ethnocentricism and devise ways to eliminate it from our society. Feeling victimised is an awful experience and, as the past evil treatment of the Jewish communities has shown, can lead to a climate where the unthinkable is tolerated.
	Finally, let us seize this opportunity to ensure that certain minorities in our diverse community do not feel as though xenophobia of a religious kind is to be tolerated in our society. Let us also ensure that those who wish to divide and fragment us into this Huntington type "clash of civilisations"—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am sorry to interrupt him. He has spoken about the Muslim community as though there is just one single view. Does he accept that there is within the Muslim communities a great deal of concern adverse to the Bill? As I told the noble Lord before the debate, when I appeared for one hour on Islam Channel, a broadcasting network for 250,000 Muslims in this country and beyond, and expressed my opposition to the Bill, only one Muslim phoned in to express disagreement with me. Every other Muslim who phoned in expressed grave concern about the effect on Muslims. Is there not great diversity and concern among Muslims as well?

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Just as in mainstream British society we have diverse opinions on everything, in the Muslim community we, too, have diverse opinions. However, I organised meetings of imams and community leaders in Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford. After a huge debate, every one of those said that they would be supporting this type of legislation. They were not all watching that programme—next time when the noble Lord is on television I shall urge them to do so. Nevertheless there has been such a debate within the Muslim community.
	I support the Government and I wish that this debate, which I thought was about protecting the faith communities and some people have taken it beyond that, had been a broader debate about whether the extremism was within or outside mosques and whether such extremists had anything to do with Islam.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am happy to have heard the noble Lord's comments, because I understood that the Government said—and I am in no position to contradict them—that some of this poison has been implanted in the minds of young people in mosques. That is one of the major concerns that I have with the Bill. If the noble Lord can set my mind at rest about that, he will have achieved, for me at least, a considerable advance.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I am grateful. I know not of a single mosque where there has been an authorised preaching of hate, except the Finsbury Park mosque, in London, which has been in the media. Thank God those people have been locked up and that the mosque has been handed over to the legitimate committee. However, the noble and learned Lord mentioned in his speech a report about the widow of one of the terrorists. We know that many criminals go to public places. We know that thugs go to football matches to cause problems, but we do not close down the football grounds. We just lock up those who cause the problems. So I hope that people do not blame a mosque for any criminal who has gone to it. That should also apply to churches and synagogues. I support the Government.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I do not support the Government. I approach the Bill with a strong presumption in favour of freedom of speech. I shall quote John Stuart Mill, although it is a different passage from that cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. He stated:
	"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind".
	I would not have thought that it was necessary to restate that liberal position, but for the danger of it being overwhelmed by social arguments for suppressing unpopular and extreme views. Free speech is part of the general system of liberty that is required for humans to flourish. It is a necessary safeguard against the abuse of power and is essential for the advancement of knowledge. Mill was especially concerned with the last. A society which prevents things from being said or discussed because they cause offence is a society that has given up the quest for truth. That implies some tolerance for derogatory language, however hurtful it may be.
	Free speech cannot be absolute, it must be balanced against the need for privacy and to protect public order. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred to the Public Order Act 1936. I remind him that it made it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language causing or likely to cause a breach of the peace. For language to be made illegal, it had to cause reasonable people to feel that it would lead to a breakdown in law. That is a clearly defensible position, building on a number of famous case law examples.
	The Public Order Act 1986 overturned that tradition. Part III created a new offence of stirring up racial hatred and had no intrinsic connection with public order. As Card, Cross and Jones observed in their textbook commentary:
	"None of the offences under POA 1986, Part 3, requires an intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or the likelihood of such a breach, nor that it be proved that racial hatred was actually stirred up".
	Moreover—back to John Stuart Mill—
	"the truth of the contents of any written material or words is not a defence".
	The Bill merely adds,
	"stirring up hatred . . . on religious grounds",
	to stirring up racial hatred. It is a bad extension to what I have always regarded as a bad Act. Given that it is not possible to repeal Part III of the Public Order Act 1986, I would leave existing legislation severely alone.
	The Lord Chancellor admitted that the Bill is designed to close a small gap in existing legislation—a gap so small as to appear invisible to many of us. The gap is said to be that the existing law does not cover religious attacks which are merely a cover for racial attacks.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is not at all what I said. The position is that stirring up religious hatred is not covered by the existing law, save in relation to Jews and Sikhs, due to the ethnic basis of their religion. That is the argument that the noble Lord should address, not the argument that he has just put.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor. Is he suggesting that someone who shouts, "Kill all Muslims" or, "Kill all Christians" from a public platform would escape successful prosecution under existing legislation?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is incitement. The issue that the noble Lord needs to deal with is when someone says to a group of supporters, not to the people who might be terrified by it, "I urge you all to kill this group", or "I urge you all to hate this group", because they are Christians or Muslims. That is the argument that the noble Lord must deal with.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that under existing legislation that kind of comment could not be subject to a successful prosecution?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, I am and the argument that the noble Lord must deal is that the statement, "I urge you to hate all Christians or Muslims" is certainly not covered by existing law, when it is stated to supporters, rather than the people whom you are seeking to terrify.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is it in order for me to intervene?

Noble Lords: Yes!

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I wish it were in order, because I was about to argue that the Government seem to have forgotten their own Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which made racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress an indictable offence.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again the noble Lord is not dealing with the argument: that it is not when you are threatening people because they are Muslims, but when you are talking to your own supporters.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that inciting one's own supporters in a public would not cause alarm and distress to others?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a pending prosecution—and I shall not refer to its details, because I am keen to observe the proper rules—involving "X", who is alleged to have incited his followers to stir up hatred against ethnic Muslims by using religion in an anti-Islamic hate speech as a surrogate. Is he aware of that prosecution, as has been reported in the newspapers?

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, no, I was not aware of that and I thank the noble Lord for mentioning it. I would have preferred to await the outcome of that prosecution before proceeding with this Bill.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the basis of that prosecution is to deal with racial hatred, not religious hatred.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I shall continue or I shall rapidly over-run your Lordships' patience. Government spokesmen have not entirely abandoned the public order argument. They say that there is an inherent or latent danger to public order in the use of insulting words directed against racial or religious groups and that it is the Government's duty to guard against that danger. But that would be carrying the precautionary principle too far. It would be similar to President Bush's doctrine of preventive war. I do not believe that the doctrine of preventing hypothetical harms should have any place in laws governing free speech.
	The Lord Chancellor says reasonable criticism, ridicule, expressions of antipathy or prejudice will be outside the scope of this Bill. I think that cuts very thin ice. Why then did the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme fade out the voice of a preacher who said,
	"you cannot come to (the Way, the Truth, the Light) through Allah; you cannot come through Mohammed; you cannot come through Buddha,"
	as any devout believer is bound to believe about a contrary religion? This law will reinforce the self-censorship that is already practised by booksellers, editors and publishers. All the main writers' organisations—The Royal Society of Literature, The Society of Authors, PEN—have opposed this Bill on these grounds.
	This Bill will encourage every cowardly, appeasing and politically correct tendency in our national life—except for one group. It will encourage extremist groups to challenge prosecution in order to maximise publicity or seek martyrdom. The effect of the Bill will therefore be the opposite of what it intends. The reasonable people will be discouraged from vigorous controversy and the extremists will be encouraged to be more extreme.
	There is a Bill which a freedom-loving Government could have introduced and that is one scrapping the blasphemy law. Instead of getting rid of this antiquated and inflammatory piece of legislation which had been dormant for more than 50 years before Mary Whitehouse discovered it, the Government seek in effect to extend it to all religions. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the net effect of this legislation will be further to shrink the area of free speech and vigorous debate for no sufficient reason. Racial and religious groups are already protected to the maximum extent which is tolerable in a free society.
	For the sake of a dubious and, at best, trivial gap in the law, the Government are prepared to overturn the fabric of our tradition of free speech which has been built up over several hundred years. This is the sign of an authoritarian, not liberty-loving Government and I urge them to think again.

Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I have opposed this Bill in every form in which it has come before this House and I shall continue to oppose it while there is breath in my body. First, this Bill is based on a misunderstanding, which is that because Jews and Sikhs have protection as religious minorities, Muslims and others need it.
	The protection that Sikhs and Jews have is not as religious minorities. It was a very peculiar decision of the House of Lords which is, as I have said before, based on a complete ignorance of facts. The decision was based on the idea that Sikhs constitute a homogenous ethnic community. The issue at that time was about the wearing of turbans, which of course does not apply to Sikh women. So we are protecting the right of Sikh men to wear turbans, and I have nothing against anybody wearing turbans. But then to elevate that into the idea that therefore every religious community has to be defined as a homogenous community or race—the logic was that because they have homogenous beliefs they are a race. That was the spirit of the original protection.
	But now we are saying that every religion is a race. If every religion is a race, what is the distinction between race and religion? If there is no distinction between race and religion why do we need this Bill? That is what I do not understand. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, nobody has argued that protection ought to be removed from the Sikhs and Jews. I beg to differ. I argued from these Benches that it would be much better if we redefined the protection the Sikhs have and made it clear that it is not a protection because it is a religion.
	Like my noble friend Lady Flather, I got a distinctly angry letter from the British Sikh Federation who also proceeded to tell me that I clearly had not understood that Sikhs are not Hindus, thank you very much. That showed a lot of intolerance, but we will ignore that. If we are going to say that every religion is a race, then Scientologists are a race, Satanists are a race. But are they? Are they ethnically homogenous? It defies belief. Somebody should have challenged the 1983 judgment of the House of Lords which was based on complete anthropological ignorance. But that is for another day.
	We have this Bill for the third time running. It is supposed to argue against hatred. I have experience of being on the wrong side of what the schedule provides. In paragraph 5(3) it states:
	"having regard to all the circumstances, the words, behaviour or material are (or is) likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are (or it is) likely to stir up racial or religious hatred."
	I have recounted this before, but a good story is always worth telling twice.
	I went to a conference of comedians after the last religious hatred Bill was rejected. The comedians did not turn up, so I had to make a speech. I remarked on how interesting it was that I knew lots of jokes about the bible, I knew lots of Jewish jokes but I do not know any Muslim jokes. There must be something funny in the Koran—not that there was something funny in the Koran, but there must be something in there about which I could tell a joke. My noble friend Lord Ahmed told me later that there was a lot of trouble about that remark of mine. In somebody's view that was likely to stir up hatred. I did not intend hatred, but the law does not say anything of my intention.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I cannot recollect making any reference to stirring up hatred although I do recall mentioning that I do not know of any jokes in the Koran and people felt very offended about it. It was not anything about inciting hatred against Muslims or people with faith communities.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I have a better recollection. My noble friend asked me to apologise to the Muslim community for having upset them. There is a very small distance between having upset people and having incited hatred, especially once this Bill is passed. People will easily leverage upset into hatred. I genuinely was at the wrong end of that experience, and as noble Lords know, whenever I speak I do incite controversy.
	I know that my time is running out. Lastly I would say this one thing. I am worried about the imams. I am seriously worried about the imams who are now accused of preaching hatred.
	I am worried about their free speech. I mean that genuinely. People have a right to believe what they believe. I can stand up and denounce anything I like. They may want to denounce Christians or Jews or Hindus—whatever it is. Most religion is involved in hating other religions. That is essential religion. If you are a monotheist then you believe that your God is true and every other God is false, and therefore you go around saying, "These people believe in this false God. They are idol worshippers".
	Unless those acts of speech really lead to violent acts or a reason to believe in violence, why should we stop them from preaching whatever they preach? If they want to preach their religion, let them preach their religion. I am afraid that this Bill will be much worse for Muslims than for anybody else.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that it was a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I think that it is a privilege to follow both the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
	I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said on the concept of monotheism, because I was going to start with the following quote:
	"The modes of religion in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful".
	So wrote the great Gibbon of "Decline and Fall" fame. That happy state of affairs was brought to an abrupt end by the establishment of Christianity in the West as the official religion of the western world.
	Monotheism states that all other creeds are wrong, and therefore can or even must be rooted out. It follows also that sections of monotheism fight like alley cats. You have only to see the difference between various sections of the Wee Frees in Scotland who hate each other almost more than they hate the Muslims. One has only to think of the number of people whom Philip II burnt in the Grande Place in Brussels—reputedly rather more than were killed by the whole of the Roman persecutions of Christianity. This has produced an intolerance.
	Of the three Abrahamic religions, interestingly enough, two are universal and multi-ethnic and one is not. So it is impossible to persuade one that you are the same race if you are a Muslim from Dahomey in north Africa, from Bosnia, from Turkey, Persia or Kashmir. They are all, obviously, of different ethnic make-up. So we cannot make that confusion.
	Moreover, in some of these religions it is right to hate what they represent. It is right to hate the persecution of the Irish Catholics by the English Protestants in the 16th century. It is right to hate the persecution of the Jews and Moors by Ferdinand and Isabella, as it is right to admire the tolerance of the Muslims in north Africa who greeted and allowed the Jews to settle there from the persecutions. It is right to hate the papacy for the Albigensian crusade. It is right to hate the doctrine of the Church of Rome towards birth control, whose consequences are that it discourages the impeding of the spread of AIDS, encourages the exploitation of women and makes more difficult the progress of population control. I think that it is right to hate the Muslim assertion that a woman's witness is worth only two-thirds of a man's. I know it is wrong that women should be hanged as teenagers for sexual misdemeanours in Persia in the name of Shia Islam. That is something that it is totally right to hate.
	I am not totally sure that I like the idea of having imposed upon me a universal Caliphate. I am not sure that I really like one of the beliefs of the descendants of someone who may have existed 3,000 years ago, or so it was rumoured 600 years later. Apparently he was promised by God when in his dotage that if he changed the spelling of his and his wife's name and circumcised himself and all his 10,000 slaves, he would have children who could nick the best piece of real estate in the eastern Mediterranean with the same God's approval. That is Genesis 17, only not in the language of King James.
	There are many more hateful aspects of monotheism that it is right to hate, and why should I not say so? Furthermore, there are west African religions that involve witchcraft ceremonies that introduce the murder and mutilation of children. Am I not allowed to hate that?
	How is incitement to religious hatred to be legally defined? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, asked that. The great Edward Gibbon, to whom I must return, aroused great hatred among the religious establishment of his day. He wrote of John XII:
	"But we read with some surprise . . . that the Lateran palace turned into a school for prostitution and that his rapes of virgins and widows had deterred the female pilgrims from visiting the tomb of St Peter lest in the devout act they should be violated by his successor".
	He said of Pope John XXIII:
	"The most scandalous charges were suppressed. The Vicar of Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest".
	Is the following little gem of a footnote to be criminalized? According to Abufelda, Ali, who washed the Prophet's body, proclaimed:
	"O propheta certa penis tuus coelum versus erectus erat",
	only he said it in Arabic, not in Latin.
	Those quotes showed his ironic attitude to Christianity and to religion as a whole and they drew down upon him the hatred of the Church. This Government have form on suppressing ancient liberties. The Prime Minister, in his speech at the Labour conference, seemed to question the importance and the essentiality of not convicting the innocent if it impeded the conviction of the guilty. There have been countless anti-terrorism Acts, some whose provisions your Lordships have been able to make less illiberal. There is a new police force who owes its loyalty to the Home Secretary and not to the Crown. There comes over the horizon the Identity Cards Bill, of whose purpose the Government are unsure and the cost of which they are ignorant. There are powers in the Civil Contingencies Act which no modern government should have if they call themselves a government of a free people. They are a Government careless of our liberties. This Bill takes away more of our rights of free thought and free speech. I hope that your Lordships will continue your established role as constitutional watchdogs and at least attempt to tame some of the more unpleasant aspects.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, following the noble Earl is always interesting but never easy. He mentioned in passing the Free Church in Scotland. I recount an argument that was going on in the readers' letters columns of the Stornoway Gazette between the Free Church and Free Presbyterian Church. It was on an obscure point of doctrine. One of the contributors made the mistake of referring to the views of the Church of Scotland, which is of course the established Church. That was brushed off in the next week's letters as, "the reference to that other pigsty". I have no doubt that that would have produced some sort of reaction under the clauses of this Bill; but it would not have been an appropriate reaction. We note that sort of thing.
	Just to reassure the House that there are those who live north of Hadrian's Wall who take a more rational view of the world, I quote David Hume:
	"Mistakes in Philosophy are merely ridiculous whereas mistakes in religion are dangerous".
	That is a warning that he gives us. We move in deep waters when we discuss these matters. Mistakes in legislation about religion are, if I can extend his quotation, even more dangerous.
	It is evident that we are moving in deep water in the wording of the Bill and indeed the wording of the Explanatory Notes. There are uncertainties and ambiguities which have been well examined in the course of this debate. I shall pick out one or two just to re-emphasise the uncertainty and ambiguity. There was actually another Presbyterian preacher who used to write down the side of his sermon notes: "Argument weak here, shout like hell!". I am not suggesting that the Government have been shouting like hell, but I do think that there are weaknesses at points in the argument.
	First, and this has been referred to, the Bill is presented in a way that draws a very close parallel between race and religion, between inciting racial hatred and religious hatred. The main difference is overlooked in the Bill. Race is a matter of ethnic origin and can be established, one way or the other; religion is a matter of belief and beliefs that we are free to accept or reject. That is a radical difference that I do not see properly attended to in the Bill as we have it before us. The Bill and its proposers sometimes imply that there is no distinction between believers and beliefs. The Bill tells us that we should define a group as religious by reference to religious belief. That is not a passing matter; it is important. If we define a group or an individual as religious by referring to what they believe, then ipso facto if we criticise the beliefs we will criticise the believer; one cannot tear them apart. There is a real sense in which I am what I believe and if my beliefs are criticised I am criticised; if my beliefs are detested, I am detested, and I must defend those beliefs if I am to resist that.
	However, Clause 3 makes proper reference to defining believers by their beliefs, but the drafters are uneasy. If we look at the Explanatory Notes, they are aware of the dangers of following that line, because if one follows that line one runs into difficulties over freedom of speech and criticism of ideas and belief that we all cherish. They state that hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs must be separated from hatred of their religion. I do not see how that can be done. Hatred is not an easy emotion and not one that we should seek to inculcate or defend, but it is there, and sometimes for good reason, as we have heard from the noble Earl.
	But if it is the case that in the Explanatory Notes they are once again trying to prise apart the believer from the religion, the first definition offered does not stand. There is uneasiness, uncertainty and ambiguity. The difficulties are also implied, perhaps in a less important way, in a clause that we have hardly mentioned: Clause 2. There will be no citizens' arrest provision for this: why? Is it because the issue is not sufficiently clear to trust the citizen to make a judgment? It has to be done by the constable—pity the poor bobby. If we as citizens cannot decide whether an offence has been committed, what hope has the policeman to decide on the arcane differences between religious viewpoints, which might be the source of the argument that has led to the fracas and the allegation of inciting hatred?
	Why is that particular provision being withdrawn in the Bill? There may be an explanation; I do not understand, but I would like to hear it. Unfortunately the uncertainty continues. Some would make a merit of it—I certainly do not—by suggesting that we should not bother defining what religion is. I was a professor of philosophy of religion for 13 years and I am aware of the complexities of the subject, but there is a standard reading list that I could provide if that would be helpful.
	I appreciate the realities and the difficulties of providing the definition. I am not sure that leaving it to the courts is the wisest way ahead, perhaps not even the theologians. Maybe the bishops: some of my best friends are bishops. But the definition is not there. As a citizen I would like some help in knowing whether I am likely to transgress. Knowing what the law would regard as religious or a religion would help me in that. For example, let us take the case of Nazism. Is it a religion or is it not? It passes many of the tests that people apply to the definition of religion. I detest the beliefs of Nazis and would encourage all to eschew them; to have nothing to do with them—to hate them. Ipso facto, those who lived by those beliefs and practised the terrible things that they did perhaps deserve our hatred. Is that a religion or not? And what about the Unification Church? It was under consideration by an Attorney-General of years gone by, not least to decide whether it was a religion. If it was a religion, charitable status would be involved. There is a big issue underlying the point.
	The issue, however, is, with no definition how do we take a view on the gossamer fine line that we occasionally apparently have to draw between ideology and religion? Finally, a puzzled question from an academic: will the Minister assure me that an audit of university libraries would not produce a range of publications that would fall under the potential criticism of the Bill and in so doing provide perhaps for extreme students in that same university a basis for taking to court the librarian, or even worse, the vice-chancellor?

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I want to address only one issue, and in doing so I hope to get through my short contribution without being reduced to a whisper, but please forgive me if I break down into croaks.
	I want to address the widespread concern, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, about the possible impact of the legislation on artistic freedom. Like many of today's speakers, I support the Bill's intentions. There can be no reason for withholding from some religious groups protection that is already available to others, by virtue of their ethnicity, despite what my noble friend Lord Desai said; nor can there be any justification for allowing loopholes in existing law to be exploited by those genuinely bent on stirring up religious hatred.
	It has been said by some who oppose the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is no longer in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, are two of them—that there is a fundamental difference between race and religion: race is fixed, goes the argument, but religion is a choice. Although I can accept the theoretical truth of this view, it does not take us very far. Religion is one of the most powerful ways in which human beings create social identity, and although it may be disavowed by individuals, those who have been brought up within the strictures and structures of religious belief of any kind are marked permanently, for better or for worse, by that experience. "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is not a light-hearted assertion. The actual practice of religion is not required for people to identify themselves in relation to it nor, more importantly, is it required for others to make that identification. We have only to look across the Irish Sea, or at the supporters of Rangers and Celtic, to see the evidence.
	Along with race, religion is one of our routine shorthand ways of describing both "sameness" and "otherness", and history reveals how depressingly often we use it to persecute our fellows. For that reason I support the intention of the Bill to extend protection under the law equally to all religious communities. There is, however, a vast difference between persecuting or harassing a person because of his or her beliefs—which cannot ever be acceptable—and causing offence to that person by criticising, lampooning or failing to show respect for his or her beliefs. Although in general I believe that good manners demand that we tolerate each other's differences, there are circumstances in which causing offence is both healthy and necessary.
	In the Explanatory Notes issued with the Bill, the Government make the following statement:
	"Hatred is a strong term. The offences [created by the Bill] will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence. Further what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself. Of themselves, criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents will not be caught by the offence".
	I recognise that that is an attempt to meet objections to the Bill, which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Corston in her excellent maiden speech—I am sorry that she is no longer in her place. Those objections have been raised by writers, including playwrights, and others—cartoonists and comedians, for instance—who regard tweaking the tail of all forms of authority, religious or secular, as a legitimate and necessary part of their job. I accept that the Government do not intend to limit their freedom to ply their trade, and that they have tried to allay their anxieties in what they have said about how the law will operate in practice.
	Despite those efforts, however, there is still a risk that the Bill, if it is passed unamended, may give a useful tool to those seeking merely to silence criticism of their religious beliefs, by encouraging attempts at prosecution, which, even if unsuccessful, will be costly and time-consuming for anyone caught up in them, including the police. Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill is drafted robustly enough to ensure that no one can use it, or fear having it used against them, in any but the very narrow circumstances that the Government seek to cover?
	British Equity, the performers' union, for example, says:
	"We would not wish to see such well intentioned legislation contributing to an environment where performers were inhibited from tackling sensitive religious issues, or raising expectations from religious groups of action being taken to curb these freedoms".
	Similarly, English PEN, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, said:
	"If a publisher, production house, theatre or comedy venue has to have recourse to lawyers every time a religious term is used which might offend the sensitive, it is clear to all of us who know the arts sector that the book or play will simply not be put on in its present form. Knowing this, many writers will inevitably self-censor".
	The Arts Council England has made representations in a similar vein.
	I repeat what I said earlier: I accept that the Government do not seek any such outcomes from this legislation and that they have tried to explain their intentions and reassure their critics. But, although I recognise that self-censorship is a hard matter to detect, on the impossibility of proving a negative principle, these fears are keenly felt by artists, as my noble friend well knows. Will he consider strengthening the wording in the Bill to make it unambiguously clear that it is only people who are to be protected and not belief systems? Much will also depend on how the guidance for the Bill is drafted. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that advice will be taken from organisations such as Equity, PEN and ACE to ensure that artistic freedoms are properly protected.
	In conclusion, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor noted in his opening speech that the Government have as yet no developed plans to repeal the current blasphemy laws in the wake of this proposed new legislation. As others here have said, it must surely be time to consider whether it is still appropriate to retain such outdated law on the statute book.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be among the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal. Those opposite sit on the Spiritual Benches and I wondered whether the Bill is a spiritual or a temporal Bill. I believe that it is a spiritual Bill and therefore the word "ism" comes into it, as other noble Lords have mentioned. An "ism" is intangible: it is like a Peter Pan, a belief or an idea—a shifting, whispering sand.
	I am only here—a Baron on this barren Bench—having taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty for the past 42 years or so, which is one year less than I have been a member of the MCC. I never realised that there were many unifying factors which dealt with race and religion, although of course cricket is one of the most important.
	With regard to the oath of allegiance, I thought of Her Majesty's responsibilities. I wanted to remind your Lordships not of the great days of the Empire but of the fact that it was our investments and trade which created the multicultural society that we have today. The map, which was pink when I was born, was quite remarkable. I asked myself: what are our duties with this English language, which is now spoken as the first or second language or is being learnt by 3 billion people around the world? We are now legislating in the English language, which could be misinterpreted at will.
	I reminded myself that 29 per cent of the world's population today are members of the British Commonwealth—that is quite significant—and that they cover 20 per cent of the Earth's surface. Therefore, what we debate and discuss today may go further than these shores alone. I wondered why one of the most moving things in relation to these debates that have gone on over the years was the crowd outside Buckingham Palace and those walking down the Mall on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee. That is what religious and racial harmony are about, and no piece of legislation—no words—can make that possible.
	I was concerned about the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor having the awful job of introducing useless pieces of legislation, one after the other. I always thought that ultimately legislation was down to written or spoken words and so I tried to find out what were these words that could cause such damage to society. I spent a good chunk of the weekend downstairs at Waterstone's interviewing as many ethnic groups as I could. I asked what the inflammatory words were that could cause such hatred, but I was told that we should perhaps begin nearer to home with Erskine May. For the record, I remind your Lordships that Erskine May states very simply:
	"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language"—
	it is hoped, of all language.
	"Offensive expressions against the character and conduct of Parliament itself are not permitted, since not only are they a contempt, but they may also tend to degrade the legislature in the public estimation".
	The legislature is so degraded in public estimation that perhaps it should become part of the Bill.
	Expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference include:
	"Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder".
	That could be a Bill because we are only concerned about "incitement" or "winding people up".
	I started part of my working life in a company that carried out the original race relations study in the 1960s. I had various jobs around the world. I had traced the Silk Route and had been in almost all the religious areas where I had to describe to myself the religion of the people because they could not tell me what it was. I often had to speak when there were no bishops around. In my time, I had to deal with the problem in Iran over the Satanic Verses and sit with my team of mullahs and specialist advisers. I then made the mistake, when someone introduced me to a mufti, of thinking that we were talking about someone in plain clothes. I have made many mistakes in relation to the different religions.
	As I went along the Pilgrim Route, I found that effectively one came back to the phrase: "And the word was with God" because almost all religion is spread by the word. We now need to spread the word. There is no need for this Bill but it has been a good day out at the races.
	I end by saying to the Government that all that is needed is a code of practice approved by every religion. The following code of practice is used in the construction industry:
	"No employee or job applicant will be less favourably treated than another on the grounds of their sex, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, race, nationality, ethnic or national origin, colour or disability".
	Finally, on football, Celtic and Rangers have been promoted today, as well as Hibs and Hearts, but we must return also to Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United. But we have left out one of the faiths: we ought to talk about the Yids. "Yid" is not an insulting word; the English dictionary defines it as someone who speaks Yiddish. The Yids are an extremely good football team. Noble Lords will know which one I mean—I have supported it from time to time—and will appreciate that I have brought in yet another ethnic group.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, not a great deal has been left unsaid in the debate today. One thing is clear: very few voices have spoken in favour of the Bill. We do not doubt the good intentions of the Government in introducing these measures, but good intentions in themselves do not turn a bad Bill into a good Bill. We may legislate in haste, but we must repent at leisure.
	Short-term, hastily drafted legislation can do far more harm than good. The situation with which the Bill seems to tinker is more complicated, and far deeper. It needs much more thorough consideration of the whole change in the United Kingdom in recent years. We need a Royal Commission, at least, to consider the ethnic, national and cultural changes experienced. Now, the United Kingdom has always been in a state of change—and, historically, we have benefited from changes such as the influx of different people from other parts of the world. That human tapestry has enriched our society in so many ways, not only in the past few years but over many centuries.
	Most of us in this House welcome these people who make a society of different cultures and backgrounds. Some would suggest we should turn the clock back and try to reclaim a yesterday, but this is not possible. If everyone were repatriated, Britain would be a very empty island. Even the Celts, like myself, would feel threatened. The rate of change has accelerated, and the content of that change can be seen as a threat, a challenge or an opportunity. The Bill sees only the threat. It sees neither challenge nor opportunity.
	A country needs people who have confidence in it and are happy to say "It's my land, my country. It's to where I belong". Those who come to these islands have always been subject to the law of the United Kingdom. One thing we know: there can never be one law for one community, and a different law for another. As a Welshman, I think a great deal of the laws of Hywel Dda, but I would not dream of suggesting that I live by those laws. Other people are comfortable with Sharia laws. But there can only be one set of laws: that of this Parliament of the United Kingdom, to which every resident or visitor is subject. Only in that way will there be stability and confidence—and people feeling that they belong to this country.
	Similarly, so that people of all backgrounds have confidence when in the United Kingdom, we must uphold those international conventions that apply across the world—on human rights, on refugees, on torture, on trafficking, and on the rights of children. These must be part of our thinking and acting. We must not undermine our commitment to any of them. Let us be counted among the nations in which every person can have confidence.
	The old battle cry was "no taxation without representation". Today, in a United Kingdom of many faiths, should not those who frame the laws be representative of the whole community? Should we not, in considering any reform of Parliament, make sure there is a place here for people of new and different faiths? I am an old-fashioned Liberal. I remember when one of our policies was to disestablish the Church of England. In Wales, we managed that in 1920—for good or ill, I do not know, but it has changed there. Today, I would not call for any disestablishment—not least because I think the world of some of the Bishops among us—but also because we need not disestablishment but a way to embrace, to include and to establish, if you wish, other areas of faith. I hope that when we come to think of reforming this House other faiths can find their place here.
	The Bill does not touch any of these real problems—these earth-shattering changes of 30, 40 or 50 years. When the Bill was introduced earlier, the Minister was unable to answer our questions. It was a mystery that reminded me of the crowd of youngsters who climbed Snowdon, having been promised that they could see the whole panorama—and what a panorama we have in north Wales—even over to Ireland on a clear day. But when they reached the top of the mountain, it was mist-covered and they saw nothing. They missed the view—and viewed the mist. This Bill before us is all mist and little view. I hope we reject it.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, like other noble Lords I have experienced religious insults. I was brought up in the Glasgow Catholic community and when we made our way to school there were regular taunts about the Pope's sexuality and whether he was indeed the anti-Christ. My identity remains very strongly linked to that background and I am conscious of the way that obscenities and prejudice can disfigure people's lives. But people within communities can be torn between their loyalty to their tribe and their desire to be freed from the stranglehold of excessive dogma. Perhaps true confidence of one's place in the wider polity comes when one can comfortably laugh at aspects of one's own belief system and see them from the perspective of others. Perhaps laughter only comes comfortably when one's sense of belonging has become secure. It may be that at this moment there is a great deal of insecurity. But I want to speak for the importance of laughter, and of laughter at oneself.
	I particularly remember the liberation of laughter when Tom Lehrer sang "The Vatican Rag" in the 1960s. Although it gave the clergy, and my mother, heart failure, I remember the words very well today. It went like this, but I'm not going to sing!
	"Then the guy who's got religion will Tell you if your sin's original. If it is, try playing it safer, Drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate".
	For many, Tom Lehrer was utterly sacrilegious but by being way out there in the scurrilous zone, he and other satirists lifted a taboo and made more space for dissent about contraception, women's reproductive freedom and the authoritarianism of the Church.
	I mention that because women in the Muslim community have come to me and spoken about their concerns about this law. It goes back to the very phrase that was used by the Lord Chancellor, "the chilling effect". Because the women who work at Southall Black Sisters or at the Newham Asian Women's Rights Group, or who work with women who have faced domestic violence or authoritarianism inside their own families and communities are very anxious that there should be space in which they can argue for a better position for women. They are very concerned that this law will have the very "chilling effect" that is being pushed to one side and is not seen as being a matter of concern.
	I am also concerned about the way in which we are raising expectations that will lead to disappointment. As other noble Lords have said, this is not blasphemy legislation. But I am afraid that many within communities believe that it is and when it fails to fulfil their expectations that it will mean successful prosecutions of things in the media, books, television programmes or portrayals that they find unacceptable, there will be people from minorities who will feel disappointed that prosecutions are not brought.
	The other great problem in this particularly sensitive time is that we will probably see it used most effectively against radical Muslims. The fear that it might inflame further disaffection and a sense of being particularly spotlighted is a difficulty of which we should be very conscious.
	We should also look again at the value of free expression. It seems very much the prerogative of the liberal classes, the intellectuals in the universities or in the media. But it is one of the values that we should be extolling when we are talking about the things that Britain stands for. For many new communities, particularly people who have come from emerging democracies or from places where the traditions of democracy were not well rooted, the idea of free expression seems less important. We have to be making the arguments for why it is absolutely important to have free expression as one of those very values that we should be looking to when we are presenting the things that should be uniting us as a nation of all colours and religions. We should be making sure that the arguments are made well. We have to be capable of debunking, mocking and, indeed, taking apart some of the things that are presented as being about religion. So often I am told by those in all of our religions that the holy books that are pointed to are rarely as prescriptive as claimed.
	I ask lawyers to look at the Public Order Act again. It is my submission that we will find the answer to those problems in its drafting. It has been working successfully; we just have to be more active in making it work for us.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I support the legislation. I believe that incitement to religious hatred is destructive of our social order, and like incitement to racial hatred, it should be a crime. Further, I believe that religious hatred exists as a category in its own right and should not be regarded as a surrogate for racial hatred. So, much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I am not drawn to his amendment. I also believe that some of the criticisms of the Bill are either unfounded or highly exaggerated. I do not believe that, even as it stands, it will prevent the Christian gospel being preached or religious comedy and satire being expressed, as some claim.
	It has been argued—most recently by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood—that race and religion are so different that they cannot be considered in the same way. One is a matter of identity; the other a matter of personal choice. While it is true in theory—that was the aspect that Professor Sutherland in his role as a professional philosopher emphasised—it ignores the fact that religion, especially in our time of rapid social change, is a crucial matter of identity. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in his other hat as a sociologist of religion, would also acknowledge that.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, rightly emphasised, religion, like race, is used to categorise whole groups of people. In practice, personal choice usually has little to do with it. So I have no difficulty with race and religion being treated together for this purpose. Both are markers for identity and can be targeted for hate.
	That said, like many of your Lordships, I have serious worries about the wording of the Bill as it now stands—particularly amendments to Section 3(18)(1)(b) of the Public Order Act, which states:
	"Having regard to all the circumstances . . . hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby".
	I shall not reiterate those worries at length because they have been mentioned by other noble Lords. But they have to do with the perception of what is being said or written, and that it will be received as abusive or insulting whatever might have been intended, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, hinted in her splendid evocation of Glasgow.
	There is the important case of Norwood v the Director of Public Prosecutions, as some of your Lordships will know. In that case, the regional organiser of the BNP displayed in the first floor of his flat in Shropshire a poster that contained highly inflammatory anti-Islamic material. Mr Norwood was successfully prosecuted and convicted of a religiously aggravated offence of harassment in breach of Section 5 of the 1986 Act. The district court found that the poster was abusive and insulting to Islam and to followers of that religion, and that it was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress without reasonable justification. The defendant was fined £300 and the conviction was upheld by the divisional court on 3 July 2003.
	Why was this offence not used in relation to other anti-Islamic material such as that produced by DCI David Tucker to the religious offences committee on 27 June 2002? Why could not already existing legislation be used against such foreseeable offences in the future? We have not yet had any compelling evidence that a new offence, with all the consequent worries to which it has given rise, is really necessary, and why inflammatory material, which clearly exists and needs to be stopped, cannot be prosecuted under existing legislation.
	I am open to being convinced by the Government that we need a new offence, but we need more evidence than we have so far heard. Because of the great worries that have been expressed, the Government should seriously consider possible amendments to the Bill. A number would be possible. One could be an amendment recognising a defence that there is no offence if the speaker, or whoever is appropriate, is engaged in bona fide religious discussion, education or artistic expression.
	Another amendment would remove Section 18(1)(b) altogether so that the offence is committed only if the speaker or other person intends to stir up religious hatred. I recognise, of course, that if that occurred there would be a lack of symmetry with incitement to racial hatred, which would remain an offence if the likely effect was to stir up hatred. But we have to recognise that there is a difference between race and religion. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom I very much agree, stressed:
	"In practice, strong language about belief and unbelief can all too easily be perceived [as abusive or insulting] . . . it might be made a necessary ingredient of the offence for the accused to have an intention to provoke hatred, violence or discriminatory action. The mere likelihood that religious hatred would result would not suffice. This would make it much clearer that the law could not have an inhibiting effect on vigorous debate, polemic and satire about religious belief and affiliation".
	There are also other possible amendments.
	I urge the Government to meet with an all-party group to see whether it might be possible to draw up an acceptable amendment that would meet the very real fears so powerfully expressed in this House tonight.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I declare my support for the intention of the Bill, but I am very disturbed by it. I said so when we debated it in 2001 and my opinion remains the same. I was concerned then about how you would outlaw incitement to religious hatred without curbing freedom of speech.
	My noble friends Lord Ahmed and Lord Desai spoke about Jews and Sikhs having special privileges because they were both religions and ethnic groups. I said then that surely the answer is somehow to query the decision of the House of Lords and withdraw the religious element, not add other religions. However, I was told that this was not possible. Yet, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seems to say that it is. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
	What I still find difficult to understand is how the law will now recognise that people's actions and words are inciting religious hatred. My noble friend the Minister spoke about language, religious language. Religious language has been used to inflame hatred for centuries. Some may call it perversion. But others use texts from all the great faiths to justify hatred against other faiths and societies. Yet language is important. Faith communities have long understood that piety and spirituality flourish with debate and discussions. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell, it seems to me that the way to combat religious hate speech is by having more speech. This is one of the great strengths of Jewish jokes, and the Catholic jokes told by my noble friend Lady Kennedy.
	On the radio this morning Mr Goggins, the Minister in another place, said that the purpose of the Bill is to protect the believer. There are unreasonable elements in all religions. There are fundamentalists who claim rights from the Old Testament, from the New Testament and from the Koran, all in the name of faith. They are all pious people—believers—but even they have human anger, hatred and prejudice. No. Extremists of all faiths will see this Bill as an effort to protect them. A form of appeasement.
	Appeasement only undermines our justice system. For centuries this has been dealt with by many of the great religions by teaching that the law of the land is the law. Not the religious law. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, emphasised that. We all have to yield to the law of the state. Once the state allows this to be questioned by religions, the state gets into difficulties.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to some of the difficulties. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we need to defend our liberal democracies, which work when citizens identify with the state as a whole and not only with those segments identified by their religion.
	So you do not deal with this fundamentalism by forbidding certain language to protect believers. The state should not even enter into the argument. You must insist that the law of the land is the law and that the law protects us all alike—Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus.
	Judging by the tone of the debate, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that more understanding is required. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke of this. Earlier this year, researchers from the Metropolitan Police and the Institute for Jewish Policy Research—I declare an interest as its honorary president—were given access to official police statistics and crime reports in London from 2001–04. This was an attempt to understand more clearly the dynamics of anti-Semitic incidents as recorded by the police in London. This is not the time for me to go into details of the report but the Minister will be aware that it provided an improved understanding of the nature of anti-Semitic crime—a form of religious hatred—and this understanding is helping the police to tackle it better and to hold offenders to account. It seems to me that the lesson from this exercise is that before we have more laws to fight religious hatred we perhaps need more understanding, together with more effort to address it through existing legislation.
	As I understand it, Islamophobia occurs not because some people consciously oppose Islam as a religion but, rather, because by their dress and other aspects of their appearance many Muslims look "different", and that difference stimulates prejudice and stereotyping. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, implied this. Indeed, in the first part of the 20th century, following large-scale Jewish immigration into Britain, the same could be said about many Jews. We have learnt that modern anti-Semitism has nothing to do with what Jews actually believe. The same can be said of anti-Muslim feeling.
	Many Muslims certainly suffer from the effects of prejudice and discrimination and the Government's aim to tackle this is welcome. If there is a gap in the law, it can be filled by amending current legislation on incitement rather than by continuing along this path.
	Noble Lords have spoken about the need for religions to live together. I agree with Rabbi Tony Bayfield, who wrote recently that one of the big moral principles of the 21st century world is learning to live modestly and respectfully with others, with their stories and with their fragments of truth. I do not believe that the proposal in this legislation will help. It raises expectations about defending beliefs that cannot be fulfilled. The disappointment that the law is ineffective will only exacerbate the problem for all. Because the proposed Bill is so fraught with difficulties, I will find it hard to support it.

Lord Monson: My Lords, anyone who has studied the history of conflict will be aware that religious antagonisms are even more intense and potentially dangerous than antagonisms based on race, class, language or political philosophy. It is not necessary to go back to the Crusades, the St Bartholomew's day massacre or the 30 years' war to demonstrate this. Consider the past 100 years. After setting aside the two world wars and their immediate aftermath, and the mass murders perpetrated by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, which were too one-sided to be classified as conflicts, most of the remaining wars, battles and massacres had a strong religious element, even where superficially the quarrel was about something quite different.
	The Indian sub-continent 58 years ago is naturally the first to spring to mind. Going back a few decades, one thinks of Ireland north and south; the southern Balkans prior to World War I where Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Turkey were all locked in bloody combat; the newly-formed state of Yugoslavia after World War I where three religions—orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and Muslims—massacred each other with great gusto not simply from 1990 onwards but intermittently over the decades; Cyprus; Israel/Palestine; Lebanon; Syria in 1982; Algeria after 1953; northern Nigeria; southern Thailand; the southern Philippines; Malaysia in 1969; Indonesia spasmodically over the decades; Sri Lanka, where the protagonists practise different religions; Pakistan where Shia Muslims are the chief victims; and of course Iraq where both Shias and Sunnis are massacring one another. Even the Spanish Civil War—the Basque regions excepted—could be described as a merciless struggle between Catholic ultras aided by Muslim mercenaries on one hand and militant atheists on the other. The only major exceptions I can think of are in Africa: Biafra, Rwanda and Darfur.
	It is clear that the stirring up of religious hatred can have horrible consequences. But this is not what the Bill will prevent.
	Paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes makes it clear that actual religions can be attacked with the most extreme vehemence, with no holds barred. This is only proper in a free society which values freedom of expression, much as one might hope for voluntary restraint. Unfortunately, with the example of Salman Rushdie in the forefront of the minds of satirists, comedians, playwrights and so on, this voluntary restraint is likely to apply only to criticisms of those religions that do not believe in turning the other cheek.
	The Bill seeks to prevent hatred being stirred up against the adherents of those religions, as if the two could be neatly compartmentalised. This cannot be done in practice. Moreover, surely it should be a crime to stir up hatred—which is bound to lead to violence sooner or later—against any group, be they Pentecostalists or paediatricians. Noble Lords will remember that mobs attacked paediatricians not long ago, confusing them with paedophiles. For the record, I do not believe that actual paedophiles should be subject to mob violence either.
	Furthermore, the Bill does not confine itself to the deliberate stirring up of hatred, but as my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, extends to the unintentional stirring up of hatred. How on earth can people know in advance that they might do this? I agree totally with the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford that we must amend that clause. The fact that similar words occur in earlier legislation does not make it any better. While we can unite in deploring threatening or abusive words or behaviour, insults are a different matter. There is no objective clear-cut definition of "insult". Very few people are naturally thin-skinned. Many more have been encouraged to become so by the indigenous zealots for political correctness.
	Who could have imagined even five years ago that the three little pigs would seriously be in mortal danger? I have heard the views of Muslim friends—ranging from the almost secular to the devoutly religious—for more than 50 years, and not one of them would worry about such things, let alone make a fuss about them. The current hyper-sensitivity is a politically inspired innovation. Judging by her excellent speech, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, would agree with that.
	Furthermore, could not the unvarnished truth, calmly presented, be considered nevertheless insulting? Let me give an example. Home Office statistics confirm that followers of certain religions are much more likely to be in prison than followers of other religions. Might it not be insulting to the first group to publicise this and might not the public revelation stir up animosity?
	What about ritual slaughter? Having looked into the matter carefully, I am satisfied that ritual slaughter is scarcely more cruel than non-religious slaughter, but there are millions of people who sincerely—if hypocritically, in the case of the carnivorous majority—believe it to be barbarous and those who practise it barbarians. Will they be prosecuted if they say as much, as Brigitte Bardot was prosecuted in France for voicing similar sentiments?
	We shall clearly have a very hard fought Committee stage, and I am only sorry that I shall have to miss the first day.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, as the night is young, I should like to spend a moment congratulating the two maiden speakers in this debate, my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lady Corston. The noble Lord occupies an important function in a most important football club, whose only vice is that it will not come south of the border to play Charlton Athletic at the Valley. The noble Baroness has shown by her quite remarkable occupation of the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of our party in another place how she has benefited from being a student at the London School of Economics and Political Science, whose motto is Rerum Cognoscere Causas, meaning get to know the causes of things—not just the causes of crime, but the causes of things—and that she has perhaps absorbed that atmosphere, which is so important at the school, of a slight distrust of authority. We hope to hear my noble friends speak often, much as I disagreed with both their very controversial speeches.
	On the Bill, I could easily follow those who have spoken about Mill and Hume and turbans and agree with the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Haskel. But I feel I should use the time I have to say why I could face with equanimity the enactment of the Bill only if it received some very necessary keyhole surgery in a revising Chamber. The trouble is that, as many speeches have shown, the Bill tacks on a bit to the Public Order Act 1986, without which it cannot really be understood. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this House should demand, before the Committee stage, a Keeling schedule. So that they do not have to look it up in Erskine May, that is a schedule that sets out what would happen to the 1986 Act if the Bill were passed as it stands. Unless we have that, we cannot really understand what the Bill would do and the dreadful consequences that some of the enactment would, without doubt, although not intentionally, have for freedom of speech.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, if I recall, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at least conceded that he would make available a copy of the Act in its new form to all noble Lords.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I apologise if I was unfair to him; one is not supposed to reveal conversations in the Corridors, but I understood that that was still a doubtful matter. Nevertheless, let us have a Keeling schedule.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the great advantages of his proposal is that the House would, for the first time, be able to see the array of other criminal offences and massive powers already available rather than seeing a little keyhole?

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Lord understands my proposal precisely and I am very pleased that it appears to have approval in the House. I hope that it has the approval of the Government, because, if it does not, they are hiding behind misunderstandings of the Bill. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about what the law can do in this area, but that is another matter.
	There has certainly been misunderstanding about the Bill. The Bill does not deal merely with incitement, because the Act into which it would go does not deal only with incitement. In this respect, the Bill has been sold, no doubt unintentionally, on a false prospectus. Even Ministers on the radio this morning and other people all over the place misunderstand it. The Mayor of London has spent quite a lot of money distributing documents which state that the law is about,
	"only material that incites religious hatred".
	Whoever advised him on that cannot have read the Bill, or at least the 1986 Act, because, in fact, the Bill would create an offence of inciting religious hatred. Inciting religious hatred would apply, as all the textbooks say, in a case where there is intention so to act. Professors Smith and Hogan, who are authorities and, alas, no longer with us, wrote nine pages about the intention you must show if you are saying that someone is guilty of incitement. I recommend them to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate without understanding that point.
	Moreover, the Bill as inserted would, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, apply to insulting words which are likely to be heard by any person in whom they are likely to stir up religious hatred. At the very least, an amendment must be moved to make the legislation read,
	"stirring up hatred in a reasonable person"
	otherwise, the more unreasonable the audience, the wider the liability. That cannot be right. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. Why do they not go away and do a bit of work on this Bill? They must cut that out. I am not sure how useful a Bill would be—I agree with those who say that false expectations have been raised—but if we must have one, the House must not refrain from moving amendments, because I believe that my noble friends, mistakenly, will push this Bill through, and that is why it must be amended. The Government have become besotted with a particular manifesto commitment, which I wish they would apply to other areas. The Bill must be amended. At the very least, we must insist that it applies where it stirs up hatred in a reasonable person.
	Indeed, I must add, the situation is worse than that, because your Lordships will see in the Keeling schedule, when we get it—Section 18(5) of the 1986 Act—that the right thing to say about the effect of the Bill is that someone would be liable if the words that he has used might be likely to be thought insulting and likely to stir up hatred in any person. Once one reads the Bill out as it should be read out, it creates a manifestly absurd liability. It might work for racial hatred. If it is necessary for racial hatred, I will take that on board because it is such an abomination, but it is neither useful nor effective in terms of religious hatred. I do not wish to repeat the natural difference that noble Lords have pointed out between religious belief and race. It is too apparent for words.
	I turn to the phrases in the Bill—I leave aside "stir up", which is a vile phrase. It fails to provide a definition of religion and hatred. "Leave it to the courts", say Ministers. Leaving it to the courts is the mark of lazy legislation. What one is really saying is, "There is a problem here, but if it all goes wrong we can blame the judges". That is not the way in which a responsible legislature acts. Today we have had an incredible example: religion includes those things that are worthy of respect, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said. If that is the test, surely this Bill is more uncertain than anyone has said in debate so far.
	The experience in Australia, on a very different Bill, has at least shown that prosecution is not the only thing one has to fear. The offence under this Act, as amended by the Bill as it is, would be an unlawful means. In a civil court someone could easily start proceedings, asking for an injunction, or possibly even damages, and the Attorney-General would have no standing to intervene. The Attorney-General, who is given the possession of my and your rights—quite absurdly, as I see it—should be left to write opinions on peace and war and such matters, not messing about with little claims for prosecution in the criminal courts. It is absurd, but in a civil court he could not stop an action. I cannot believe that the Government intend to see the civil courts awash with a new wave of a religious compensation culture. Our Australian friends warn us that we must accept the fact that legislation of this kind will not improve inter-faith confidence. Legislation of this kind has been the ruin of inter-faith confidence in Australia.
	This Bill is put forward without recognition of the consequences that might follow—censorship, a suffocation of proper debate. Real debate in a real democracy does not observe the niceties that are implied in the abuse, in fine words, in your Lordships' Chamber. Real debate is tough, and so it should be in a democracy. The Bill must recognise that it must not go beyond incitement—incitement entails intention. In Committee the least we can do is to confine the Bill to that area. The Government should take the initiative for such simple changes, to build a sensible consensus around an improved Bill.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, if it had been suggested some 50 or 60 years ago that in 2005 this House would be considering legislation about religious hatred, the idea would have been laughed to scorn. No one, it is fairly safe to say, would have identified this issue as one that would have been at the top of the agenda as we enter the 21st century. Insofar as ideologies troubled the face of the waters of politics then, it was the clash between, on the one hand, fascism and communism—two virulently anti-religious creeds—and, on the other, what could loosely be called western democracy. Although western democracies were largely composed of believers in one religious faith or another, those faiths played little if any direct role in political life, which was dominated by what can perhaps be termed secular humanism. As recently as 15 years ago, when communism followed fascism onto the rubbish heap of millenarian ideologies, there was hardly a hint that that secular humanism would not gradually emerge unchallenged as the prevalent approach of societies worldwide.
	How wrong we were. Little by little, and in an as yet patchy and uneven way, religion has moved back into politics; and, of more significance to our debate today, incitement to religious hatred as a source of violence, both nationally and internationally, has returned to plague a body politic like ours which, with the rather special exception of Northern Ireland, we had believed to be free of it long ago. In Japan, a religious sect resorted to terrorism using chemical weapons.
	In India, many died in religious-related violence. In Israel a Prime Minister committed to resolving one of the longest-running international disputes was assassinated by a religious fanatic who wished to prevent that; and then the present wave of terrorism, quite unjustifiably purporting to speak in the name of Islam, broke upon us. This is not something we can hope to ignore or to insulate ourselves from.
	The question we face is whether legislation against incitement to religious hatred and, accessorily, the violence which flows from it, is a proper and necessary, if only partial, response to these developments. We should certainly not seek to deny that this does involve some departure from one of our basic freedoms, freedom of speech. But there have been other, strictly limited, departures from that freedom, in the context of successive race relations Acts, for example. It does not seem to me unreasonable that when religion is actually being used, or rather misused, to stir up hatred and violence, then the state should enact measures designed to prevent that continuing. Will this legislation catch a large number of relatively harmless expressions of opinion on religious matters which it should be possible to discuss freely in any open society like ours? That will surely depend on the care and precision with which we legislate; and it must clearly be a central preoccupation at Committee stage of the Bill to avoid that.
	It is also argued that we really do not need this legislation: that what with blasphemy laws, and laws against racism and no doubt shortly laws against incitement to terrorism, we have quite enough instruments to deal with the challenges that face us. But this patchwork quilt approach to the problem hardly seems to me very convincing or at all even-handed. In particular, it leaves unanswered the concern that Islam and Muslims who are not fully covered by any of these instruments are thus being unfairly discriminated against. If we plan in future in any case to take a much tougher line against indirect incitement to terrorism by certain Muslim clerics, as I believe that we should do, that strengthens the case for Islam and the Muslims too to be protected directly against incitement to religious hatred. If we cannot legislate in a scrupulously even-handed way towards our Muslim compatriots, making it clear that they and we face the same laws and receive the same protection under those laws, how on earth are we to persuade them to work with us against this perverted and paranoiac ideology which has taken root in their midst?
	This question of discrimination, or of perceived discrimination, is a genuinely serious one, both nationally and internationally. It may seem a perfectly obvious and commonsense reaction to say that the threat that faces us is from Islamic fundamentalism and from Muslim terrorists. But these are heavily loaded words which give great offence to the majority of those whose religion is Islam and who are not fundamentalists and who will never be tempted into terrorism. It is not only that there is plenty of fundamentalism in this world of ours which is not Islam and plenty of terrorists who are not Muslims. It is also not by chance that the terrorists choose to label us as crusaders in all their public pronouncements and in their proselytising literature. The clash of civilisations is their tune; and it must not be ours. So we need to avoid loose talk and misleading labels which actually make it more difficult to enlist the co-operation of Muslims and of states where Islam is the prevalent faith to stamp out this evil of terrorism. By legislating even-handedly, we can make a small contribution to demonstrating that we have understood and sympathise with the complexities of this issue.
	One other trap we do need to avoid, and that is suggesting that legislation is in some way a quick fix to deal with an immediate and short-term problem. If we suggest that, we shall surely be disappointed because it will not have that effect. At best this will be a part, but only quite a small part, of an overall long-term strategy designed to counter the tendency towards alienation which has become apparent in recent times. I wish myself that we had legislated in the way proposed when the matter was first brought forward some time ago and not now in the heat of the moment when false linkages are all too likely to be drawn. But that was not to be.
	There is much talk now of turning away from multiculturalism. I believe that that would be a fundamental mistake. We may well need to become a little more hard-headed about the way we approach and apply multiculturalism, giving more weight to certain common elements and values that need to unite all citizens of this country and those who aspire to become citizens of it.
	But that is quite different from turning our backs on multiculturalism—from insisting that you have to abandon cultural diversity if you want to be British. To do that would indeed play into the hands of the extremists.
	One of the great attractions of this legislation—to me, at least—is that it takes a firmly multicultural approach to the problem of dealing with religious hatred. We may be forced to become intolerant towards religious hatred and the violence that it spawns, but we must not at the same time lose one of the inherited hallmarks of our society: tolerance towards cultures and creeds other than those of the majority of our citizens.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, after the events of 9/11, it became a cliché to say that the world had changed. After 7 July we said that Britain had changed and that nothing would ever be the same again. Soon most, but not all, of us returned to living as normal and thinking as normal. It was comforting to believe that the resumption of the commonplace rituals of daily life was evidence of a return to normality and that the terrorist acts were an aberration. But the world has changed and Britain has changed. Those terrible events did not alone engender that change, but they were cataclysmic moments that both exemplified a different world and hastened that new world into being. As Jonathan Sachs has written:
	"Something has changed in the human condition. Our power for good and evil, the sheer reach and consequence of our interventions".
	They have changed. He continued:
	"We have come face to face with the stranger and it makes all the difference whether we find this threatening or enlarging".
	Last July we came face to face with the stranger. How we deal with that stranger, how we cope with the huge scale of new political and social challenges, will shape our future for years to come. That is why the Bill is so important.
	What has worked in the past may not and probably will not work in the future. We need new signposts, new insights and a new map. At the heart of that change is a paradox: 9/11 and 7/7 were global events that used global media and global technology. But they were also evidence of, I accept, an extreme and mutated form of a new kind of politics—a politics of identity, of belonging, of religion, of culture and of ethnicity.
	That politics of identity will be etched into our political landscape for decades. It will change the way we view politics and the way we respond. This is a challenge to our society and to our nation, but most of all to our own assumptions. The test for us is not just that we have the courage to confront others, because I know we can do that, but whether we have the courage to confront ourselves.
	It is easy to be a shrill voice for liberty, security or integration, but it is hard to see how those great values can work in harmony so that in this new world we mix decency with fairness, security with liberalism and form a lasting balance. The public sense that the ground has changed and that old preconceptions and sterile antagonisms will not meet the scale of the task that we now face. It sees security, liberty and inclusiveness not as antagonistic alternatives but as interconnected parts of a new and mature solution. The public is collapsing old boundaries and is finding a new map.
	The Bill goes to the heart of the new politics. I am not saying that it can solve all the problems at a stroke, but it does grapple with these issues without flinching. In seeking the right solution, it is not frightened to offend and that is why the Bill has my support. Of course many people look at the Bill and are concerned about freedom of speech. They are part of an honourable liberal tradition. If the Bill silences criticism of religion in any way, of course it fails.
	But as liberals we have to ask as well: what about freedom of speech in a cold, wet car park late into the night when a Muslim youth is surrounded by a gang of racist thugs hatefully abusing him because of who he is and the religion he believes in? What about his civil liberties? This is a real, tangible, obscene curtailment of a basic liberty and this is happening—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord has just described a perfectly standard criminal offence which is criminal at the moment.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, we do not know if it is a criminal offence but I am saying that this is a curtailment of his civil liberties. That is the point. This is happening in Britain almost daily. This guy, with not much money, not much income, not much really to live for—his civil liberties matter too, even to you on the other side.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, never mind, I am going on. This is a real, tangible, obscene curtailment of a basic liberty and it is happening frequently in Britain. It is the very opposite of freedom. There are of course those who say—

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He speaks so passionately about my community. People like me know many of the things that he has described very well. However there are other liberties that are also curtailed every day and we have a law to deal with them. I therefore find it extraordinary that the noble Lord does not think that the example he has quoted would be covered by existing law. Perhaps he could elaborate to us and tell us why.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, the noble Baroness can make that point when she makes her speech. I believe that the civil liberties of the individual in question matter. They may not be the civil liberties that she has talked about, but these civil liberties matter to him. Those civil liberties will be covered by the Bill.
	Of course, some people say that religion is different from race because you can opt in or out of it. Your race chooses you; you choose your religion. It is difficult to find a more illiberal sentiment. That is effectively saying that if you wish to avoid being abused by your religion, all you need to do is choose not to be religious. This is entirely the wrong way round.
	If you want to stop hateful abuse on the grounds of religion, you do not stop people being religious; you stop people being offensive to religious people. On the other hand, there are those who say the Muslim community believes the Bill to be a blasphemy law that will stop criticism of the Koran or Islam. If they believe that, they are wrong and they should be told so in the most uncompromising terms. This is not a blasphemy law by stealth. It will not stop religions being ridiculed or pilloried or made fun of in any way. But it will help to stop some people being abused because of what they believe.
	At its core, this is a Bill about fairness and responsibility. It is simply not fair that Jews and Sikhs are protected from racial abuse while Muslims can be subject to religious abuse. That unfairness cuts deep into the possibility of inclusiveness that must be the start of the process of healing and rebuilding our communities. But it is also about responsibility.
	We cannot and will not accept hateful words that incite terror. We cannot accept hateful abusive words that incite fear in people because of their religion either. We cannot demand responsibility from all equally unless we offer rights to all equally.
	This is the fundamental reason that this Bill is right, and why it is essentially liberal. A right as fundamental as this—the right not to be abused hatefully through race or religion—cannot be divisible or partial or limited. It exists for all of us, or it exists for none of us. That is the true spirit of liberal democracy. We will only turn strangers into friends if we offer to all what we now offer only to some. I urge this House to support the Bill.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that the Bill is a measure to satisfy the demands of 1 million Muslims but will restrict the free speech of 50 million other people in this country. Far from helping race relations and religious tolerance, it is bound to lead to worsening race relations, heightened suspicion between religions and smouldering resentment among ordinary people that yet another twist of the ratchet of authoritarianism and suppression of their traditional freedoms is being forced upon them by legislation of this sort by a Government careless of individual rights and freedom of expression.
	Existing legislation and rampaging political correctness are already making people look over their shoulders before making a remark that might offend somebody and land them in a police station or the courts. There was a recent example of a man being fined £750 for calling someone—a Welshman, I believe it was—a boyo. In my dictionary "boyo" is "man". That is the sort of thing we have to guard against.
	Such a situation is dangerous for democracy and will inevitably lead to a position where things that ought to be said about religions or religion itself will not be said for fear that saying them will land the person—whether he be actor, comedian, newspaper editor, author or the man or woman in the saloon bar—in jail. That is the threat under this legislation. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. The fact is that that can happen under this legislation—make no mistake about it. It could land somebody in jail for seven years.
	Our hard-won freedoms are being whittled away to accommodate a multiplicity of minorities which should adjust to the customs and institutions of their hosts. For years now multiculturalism has been promoted by government and others rather than integration and the acceptance of common values. We now know where multiculturalism leads. It leads to the ghetto and segregation. The authority for this is not me but none other than Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.
	The Bill will only give impetus to ghettoisation and can only widen the religious divide. This restrictive and oppressive Bill can only lead to more fear and alienation. Fear leads to hatred and hatred drives people apart. That is a far cry from the one nation that the Prime Minister and others say they wish to create. That is what I want to create: a nation where we are all equal under the law and in which some people are not more equal than others.
	The British are a tolerant people and all kinds of religions have been able to establish themselves without the need for restrictive legislation of the sort before us today.
	We are being assured that there are adequate safeguards in the Bill to guarantee free speech. There are not such safeguards in the Bill. The safeguard of the Attorney-General's fiat is no safeguard at all since the circumstances of its use depend on the decision of a single individual. Moreover, that individual will change from time to time. That is no safeguard at all.
	There is, of course, legislation creep, of the sort which occurred at the Labour Party conference in Brighton, when an 82-year-old man was held by police—it is no good moaning and groaning, that is the truth of it and we all saw it on the television—under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for an involuntary shout of "nonsense" during the Foreign Secretary's dreary speech. It is no good denying that; we all saw it on the television. It was a disgraceful event. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, parts of which many of us opposed, was used to justify that man being kept outside the conference, which he had a right to attend.
	Then, of course, the Prime Minister is in trouble, is he not?

A Noble Lord: No.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oh, is he not? That is strange, because it is alleged that he referred in a private place to "the effing Welsh". Although I am Welsh, I might not have taken offence at it, but nevertheless the North Wales Police have taken some offence and are investigating the incident, which was reported in a book. So when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor says that remarks made in private cannot be caught under legislation, he is wrong, because the Prime Minister is under investigation for a remark that was clearly made in what was thought to be privacy. We should keep that in mind. This is a bad Bill. It may be possible to improve it in Committee, though I doubt it. It is dangerous in concept, carelessly drafted and unhelpful for racial and religious harmony. It should be withdrawn.

Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, after the excitement of the previous two speakers it is time that my stupor-inducing talents were engaged. Like my noble friend Lord Haskel in his outstanding speech, I had considerable reservations about the Bill, but I differ from him where he said that he thought in the end he might not be able to support it. We have to remember that it was a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party and it was passed by a substantial majority in the other place. That does not mean that there are not amendments that we could sensibly propose that would drastically improve the Bill, but we have to be careful about its status.
	The standard liberal line on freedom of speech goes something like this: I should be free to do or say anything unless in doing so I harm the interests of others. Those interests must be subject to some objective tests. They cannot just be matters of subjective sensibility. There is a difference between harm and offended sensibility. Usually harm has been construed to mean two things: harm to someone's physical security—putting that security at risk—and harm to someone's autonomy; that is to say, their capacity to live their own life in their own way.
	On a liberal account, free speech can be abridged when it can be shown to cause one or both of such harms and those harms must be capable of objective determination. Given that, it might be thought that those liberal principles are wholly consistent with the Bill, because inciting religious hatred could in principle cause one or both of those harms to physical security and personal autonomy. The liberal is typically, though, concerned about a blanket provision protecting religious belief, because in the view of the liberal, religious belief, unlike racial identity, is a matter of choice and not of an unchosen constitutive identity. So, although in particular circumstances harm of the appropriate sort may be caused by free speech, such circumstances can, and should, be dealt with in terms of other laws rather than ones that give religion a privileged status and protection against the unlimited exercise of free speech. I think that that is pretty much the liberal position.
	Those outside government who have advocated something like this Bill have usually rejected that liberal view of the nature of religion. They have argued that religious belief is as much constitutive of someone's identity as is their ethnic identity—that is, belief and believer are constitutive of one another, or it is a case of two sides of the same thing.
	Oddly enough, given that that has been the thrust of the argument for the Bill outside government, the whole argument of the Government—certainly as put by Mr Goggins on the Radio 4 programme this morning—turns upon the falsity of that claim. The Government state that the Bill draws a clear distinction between beliefs, which they claim are not protected under the Bill, and believers, who are. That was precisely the thrust of Paul Goggins's claim—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, had misunderstood the nature of the Bill because he did not attend to the distinction between belief and believers.
	So we are in the odd position that those who asked for the Bill did so on the basis of a philosophical view of the nature of religious belief, which the Bill explicitly rejects. Indeed, more than that, it might be said that the coherence of the Bill depends on the rejection of precisely that account of religious belief.
	In his interview, Mr Goggins used the following example to illustrate his point. Islamic beliefs will not be protected from being lampooned, criticised and made fun of, but under the Bill the Muslim is protected, for example, against a poster which shows a woman wearing a burka with a caption saying, "What has she got underneath it? A gun or a bomb?" and so on, as such a poster could incite hatred against the believer.
	But is a clear enough distinction to be drawn here between belief and believer to give legal certainty about when an offence has been, or is in the process of being, committed, particularly when the issue of intention is not a necessary condition of the offence? I give an example concerning Rowan Atkinson, who has been rather active in criticising the Bill. I remember a rather funny sketch in the programme that made his name—"Not The Nine O'clock News". It involved a clip of film of hundreds of thousands of Muslims praying outside a mosque in Tehran and listening to Ayatollah Khomeini. As they prayed, their heads were close to the ground, and the commentator said, "In Tehran today, the hunt goes on for Ayatollah Khomeini's contact lenses". That was a Rowan Atkinson-type skit on Muslim prayer. Would that be caught within the Bill or are the words of the Bill sufficiently robust to ensure that that is not the case?
	I believe that in the Bill we need to strengthen the defence of artistic freedom in respect of lampooning and making jokes about religion. Given that the role of intention is not set out, there may well be almost an incentive for those whose religion is lampooned to claim not only to be hurt by it but also to be harmed—that is, that such an act is not only hurtful but hateful—and there could be an incentive to over-egg the degree of offence that has been caused. We need to strengthen the provision for artistic freedom, and I agree with those who have argued that there should be a reference to intention.
	To take another example—since it might be thought that comedians can look after themselves—I was at Temple tube station yesterday, coming down to the House. The train stayed for a minute or two in the station, with the doors open. When a woman wearing a burka got into my carriage, several people immediately left the train. It was not, in my view, at all a blameworthy thing to do: they were scared, and one can understand why.
	Imagine that one man who left the train went to his local pub last night, and started holding court at the bar. Telling his friends what he had done, his line in the discussion would be "Well, who knows what she has got under the burka?"—exactly the same point, in conversation, as Mr Goggins was saying the Bill would catch in the poster. The man had no intention of stirring up religious or racial hatred; but could it be construed as that if someone reported him, because the intention was not a necessary condition? Otherwise, the situation is precisely the same as Mr Goggins's poster. If one is caught, I cannot see why the other is not.
	I thought the Government's aim was to liberalise fundamentalist Islamic groups, as part of the liberalisation which other faith groups in our society have gone through. We have a right to insist on the maintenance of liberal values, yet the effect of the Bill might well be to protect faith from challenge and make it even more inward-looking. Faith communities should not look for special legal protection. They should, as John Stuart Mill argued, be willing to meet and argue in the public realm about challenges to beliefs, not retreat into some protected bastion.
	Finally, in the light of this, I am concerned that faith communities will still not be dealt with equally as a result of the Bill. I am sure many Muslims are suffering under what the Government consider a false belief—that they will receive the same protection as is given to the Anglican form of Christianity under the blasphemy laws. If the Government are so convinced that we should protect believers and not belief, in respect of other religions, they should have the courage of their convictions and repeal the blasphemy laws—which do the precise opposite.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I want to apologise to the House for speaking in an irregular fashion. I thought I would be unable to attend today, but I have been able to extricate myself from another commitment, and am using this opportunity to speak in the gap.
	I will be brief. First, I too regret that the Government have chosen not to consult further—as commented on by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The events of the summer have hardened positions on all sides, and it would have been most helpful to have re-examined the issues in the light of the changed atmosphere. I believe the Prime Minister told us that the rules of the game had changed. If they had indeed changed, then it would have been useful to use the new atmosphere to look anew at the problems—as well as the solutions that we might be able to find. But the Government's first instinct, as always, is of course to rush to legislate. That is where we find ourselves today.
	My second point is on that crucial question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to which we had no satisfactory answer. That is the contradiction of, on the one hand, bringing forward this measure and, on the other, the proposed glorification and incitement offences to combat terrorism. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier that, for example, if a preacher—an imam—incited violence, then he would be done for that. My question is: what would we do with imams and others who genuinely believed that what they were saying was compatible with their view and beliefs? In other words, that they did not think they were inciting violence when they had. Would we go to Al-Azhar, or perhaps Qom? Depending on which creed it was, it would become an interesting theological debate. In trying to determine where we are, I fear we would leave an invidious task for judges and juries.
	My final point—probably my most important one—is about the Muslim community. We have heard much in this debate about the impact of anti-Islamic sentiment on the Muslim community, and how we must create a level playing field. I come from a different perspective from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and I am sorry he is not in his usual place to listen to these speeches. I too have been consulting. On the whole, I am not allowed into mosques, or I may be allowed in but I do not have the platform in mosques that men do in my religion. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I have spoken to many women, and men, across the board in the Muslim community. We are a divided community on this Bill. There is no question about that.
	We face two questions. One of our concerns is that the Bill will lead to unfulfilled expectations—I am conscious of time so I shall go quickly—and so, if we look at Northern Ireland, for example, where no prosecutions have been brought, it would shift pressure from those who are racist and indulge in anti-Islamic sentiment to the security services. It would create undue pressure in that regard. On the other hand, if we were prepared to bring prosecutions on all sides even-handedly, then the so-called "chilling effect" on freedom of expression and religious belief would very quickly bear the hallmarks of real social and intercommunal strife. So we would all be better served by the police and the DPP using existing laws to prosecute hate against Muslims who, on the whole, are a visible religious group. Even the noble Lord, Lord Gould, in his passionate defence of the Bill, cited racist thugs. He did not use the word "anti-Islamic" thugs.
	I look forward to working through the stages of the Bill to improve it sufficiently along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Lester to provide the real protections that Muslims need.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we have had an interesting Second Reading debate. I congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches. They will find that, unlike the other place, your Lordships' House has a mind of its own. If I were the Lord Chancellor, I would be desperately worried, as I can count only about nine speeches of support among the 47 that are likely to be made by the end of the debate.
	I need to clarify at the outset that the new Joint Committee on Human Rights has not yet decided whether, in the current circumstances, the Bill is compatible. I raise that at this stage because I was deeply impressed by the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, who is a member of the JCHR. I look forward to seeing the deliberations of that committee during the passage of the Bill.
	When we last debated the racial and religious hatred provision before the general election, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, made some play that I was in support of legislative measures to deal with racial and religious hatred. Let me confirm that I have not changed my position. It is right that the Government have recognised an issue of serious concern to religious minorities, and I agree with them. We must be able to deal with extremists and preachers of group hatred in our multi-religious society. That is an aim that we on these Benches support.
	But the question is whether the Bill in its present form provides the necessary protection while at the same time ensuring that there are no damaging or disproportionate effects on freedom of expression. My noble friend Lord Lester is right to complain that a promise was made that there would be consultation before the Bill was introduced and that has not happened. The political point scoring was ably demonstrated by the Home Secretary in his letter to all mosques just prior to the general election. That point was well made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady O'Cathain. Suffice it to say that it did not help the Government because public opinion, including the views of religious minorities, is sharply divided, a point very ably made by my noble friend Lady Falkner. We will bring the law into disrepute if a government Bill is the only basis on which we are asked to agree.
	There are vulnerable minorities who need protection. There is a fundamental difference between the Home Secretary and those who disagree with him. We believe that hate speeches may be religiously expressed but they are almost always racially motivated. So far no noble Lord has disputed that.
	It is right that there should be no complacency about tackling the issue. It hampers the effort to promote harmonious relations. The difference between the Government and those who disagree with them is fairly narrow. The Government insist that their way of proceeding as explained in the Bill is the only way. I am afraid that it is not simply a choice of doing nothing or doing what the Bill proposes. There are other ways to proceed. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has pointed the way forward. It requires serious consideration and a knee-jerk reaction will not help.
	It would be plain mischief if the message were to go from here about who supports and who opposes our diverse religious communities on the matter of racial and religious hatred. We can all produce a list of those who support and those who oppose, but that would miss the point. None of us can dispute that communities are sharply divided, which is not a good start for such controversial legislation.
	If the law fails to provide the protection that is required, or if the legislation is ridiculed in the courts, we shall further damage the confidence of vulnerable religious groups. The reason for my pleading is simply that past experiences in enacting legislation about incitement to racial hatred has been ridiculed in our courts, particularly by the British National Party.
	I recall my early days in Brighton where my political involvement was so resented by the then National Front that an organisation aptly named Sussex Racial Preservation Society was formed by some of the extremists. We then had Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1965 which stated that a person was guilty of an offence if with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, ethnic or national origins, he published or distributed written matter that was threatening, abusive or insulting; and, used in any public place or at any public meeting words that were threatening, abusive or insulting or brought matters or words that were likely to stir up hatred against that section on grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origins.
	The Home Secretary at the time explained that Section 6 was designed to deal with more dangerous, persistent and insidious forms of propaganda campaigns—the campaigns which, over a period, engender the hate that begets violence. He was also at pains to point out that Section 6 made only a marginal change to the existing law, and that it did not encroach on freedom of speech.
	There is no doubt that that was so. The Act provided that no prosecution could be brought except by the Attorney-General or with his consent. Why do I cite that legislation? I do so because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, started with the history of the legislation. We should recall that in March 1968 a significant prosecution was brought under Section 6, which is considered the most disastrous failure of the Government or the prosecutors at the time.
	In Regina v Hancock four members of the Racial Preservation Society were tried at Lewes Assizes for incitement to racial hatred in having distributed copies of the society's Southern News in Sussex. The authors had obviously taken care because their views did not imply threat, abuse or insult, and the defendants asserted that their publication sought a humane solution to the problem of black and Asian immigration, and that theirs was essentially an educational enterprise attacking politicians for their inaction.
	One of the most disturbing aspects of this case was that the court became a forum discussing the purity of races, the impact of immigration control and immigration in schools, the crime rate and the genetic inequality of the races. Suffice to say that all four defendants were acquitted. So much for what we are now being told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: that he has no intention of defining hatred because the jury is quite capable of understanding its meaning. If that is the case, I plead with the noble and learned Lord: please read that judgment, because that will tell you the dangers of proceeding in the court, where emotions may be generated that can sometimes be more damaging.
	All in all, that case was a considerable setback and many of the statements found in some vile publications have escaped since then because of the Attorney-General's reluctance to prosecute. That is borne out by the figure cited by some other noble Lords: there have been only 44 prosecutions so far on this matter. We need to examine carefully what is already available to prosecuting authorities. Noble Lords have mentioned several powers. Under current law, incitement to violence, harassment and a wide range of other public order offences are at the disposal of prosecutors. I hope that the information mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will be in the public domain before we consider the Bill further. The trouble that we have at the moment is that existing laws are not being enforced in practice.
	The Government argue that if incitement to racial hatred on the basis of ethnicity is effective, then by proxy, such a provision for religion will have the same effect. If a prosecution on the basis of the new legislation were to fail, as it did in the case of Regina v Hancock, we will do untold harm to race relations in this country. The precedent that has been set will make it more difficult for the Attorney-General to prosecute similar cases. That is not the way to build the confidence of a vulnerable community.
	The Bill is very short, but the issues that it raises are contentious. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury explained in yesterday's debate, the law is a limited instrument and perhaps a crude one to bring about change. The heart of the argument I advance is that tolerance and acceptance are the key factors in creating a healthy society. It may take much longer to do so, but, in the end, it will be more effective than promoting contentious legislation.
	We should seriously explore the ways by which we can extend existing laws against incitement to racial hatred. That would cover the activities of the extreme Right and the BNP when they use religion as a proxy for racial hatred. Look at what is said in all the vile literature and speeches of those groups and it will become clear that they are making racist threats. Surely the extension of existing legislation should be able to deal with such cases.
	To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make it clear that we recognise the real problems currently faced by our religiously diverse communities. The extreme Right-wing and racist groups, such as the BNP, are inciting hatred against them and often hide behind religious words such as Muslims or Hindus to avoid prosecution under incitement to racial hatred laws if they use words of a racial nature. We have already supported the need for effective equality legislation to make religious discrimination and harassment unlawful and my noble friend Lord Lester has given a lead in his current Equality Bill.
	Violent and hostile behaviour against other religious communities is unacceptable, but there are serious problems with the Government's measure. Let me spell these out. First, there is the difficulty of defining both "religion" and "hatred in the context of religion". The measure is not restricted to an intentional offence; an offence can be committed unintentionally. There is the need to distinguish between race as against religious belief and practice, which is a matter of choice, no matter how you define it. It is hard to justify criminalising incitement to hatred while not doing so in the case of political belief. There are inherent dangers in prosecution; the case that I cited is an example in point. It would be most counterproductive if the main targets were the very communities that we are trying to protect. The Bill does nothing on issues such as desecration of objects such as the Bible and the holy Koran, held sacred by faith communities. My advice is that there is still time to listen to arguments advanced by so many noble Lords in this debate today.
	I have now before me a Home Office consultation document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on how best to tackle the issue of places of worship that are being used to foment extremism. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the present Bill seems to be completely ineffective in dealing with the situation of that kind. This hardly helps the Government's case about religious hatred measures before us. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has made a useful suggestion: let us have that consultation so that we all can see where we go from here. This is essentially a bad Bill and we need to improve it. We can only do so with the co-operation of this House and at the present time it does not look as if the House is very happy with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has produced.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, cannot be here and we look forward to seeing her again soon, as we do the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to whom we wish a speedy recovery.
	What an interesting debate this has been. We have had two very enjoyable maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on his speech. He is rightly proud of Hearts, although the record got stuck in one or two places. I was reminded of the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson:
	"'Tis only noble to be good. Kind hearts are more than coronets".
	All I will say is that he should not take too much of the credit for the performance of the team, because I think that the players and the manager might have had something to do with it.
	He also strongly criticised that independent-minded broadcaster Jim Naughtie. I once did that and I regretted it. I hope he will not. But he comes with a distinguished background. I recall debating him in the 60s when I think he was president of the Scottish Union of Students. He was always a bit of a slippery customer, so he has quite a track record. But I pay tribute to the four years of service which no one has yet mentioned that he gave at the Department for International Development, where he did much good before he was promoted in 2001. All I will say is that if that speech was, according to the Companion, rightly uncontroversial, I can hardly wait for his more controversial speeches.
	I am particularly pleased to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. She has had a very distinguished career. I do not know whether she also will recall that I featured in the West Country in one party and she was the organiser in the then Labour Party. She has had a very illustrious career, particularly in Select Committees: agriculture followed by home affairs and so forth. I notice that in her recreations she is a tap dancer. I have to say that rather like her colleague she provided some support as they both danced around in support of the Bill, but they were the only speakers—apart from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—in the first 15 speeches who showed any support for the Bill. We had to wait for the 15th speech and I hope that they will not suffer from this isolation in future, because I have to report to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—we understand why he had to leave the debate at various stages—that 80 per cent of the speakers have been overwhelmingly opposed to the Bill in its present form. The Government should not be surprised by that, but the noble and learned Lord missed the comment of my noble friend Lady Flather, who described it as a piddling little Bill. Using more conservative language, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell called it unnecessary, unwise with unintended consequences.
	I noticed that the noble and learned Lord entered the Chamber during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he heard some of it but missed the opening, which was a devastating broadside. The noble Lord described the Bill as the most illiberal Bill ever introduced in his experience. I just did not want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to go to bed tonight without knowing what his noble friend had said. I do not know why the noble and learned Lord avoided answering the very simple question I put about how this sits alongside the Government's intentions so far as the alleged preachers of hate are concerned. We still await the full context so that we can see the overall picture. I hope the Minister will respond on that point.
	The Bill never survived the speeches at the start of the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They produced a devastating critique. Many other speakers have raised subtle questions about the Bill which I hope the Government will seek to answer.
	There has been a strong sense of déjà vu about the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us, we have been here before—we have exchanged views on these proposals on several occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us that this had also been debated in 1936, 1965 and 1981. So we come to this issue with some sense of history.
	On this occasion, none of us should harbour any illusions. In the wake of the general election in May, Ministers have made it plain that they believe they have a mandate to legislate in this area. Indeed, I noticed that as well as quoting—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady O'Cathain did—from this outrageous letter from someone describing themselves as "Labour's Home Secretary" during the election campaign, it was interesting to hear the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on 29th September at the Labour Party conference, when he confessed, after eight years of new Labour, that a real democratic deficit is developing. I agree with him that it is. When he seeks a mandate for this measure, he himself has conceded that less than half the Asian electorate voted.
	But, of course, it is quite wise to refer to the terms of the Labour manifesto commitment because it concludes that we must find out,
	"about how best to balance protection, tolerance and free speech".
	This changes nothing in our deeply-held reservations about the substance of this egregious Bill. We shall do everything we can to prevent the Government upsetting the crucial balance between protection and freedom of expression. We shall also continue to challenge Ministers on whether the legislation satisfies—as many speakers have pointed out—their own stated ambitions for it. We shall also ask the difficult questions about why religion and adherents of religion are to receive this special treatment in law. So I approach this debate very much in a spirit of sorrow rather than anger.
	There have been some very important contributions. I share the outrage at the personal attack suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. It was the kind of attack directed against me and others many years ago when we fought for the rights of the Ugandan Asians in the early 1970s. But the noble Lord pointed out, as I have on several occasions, that existing laws cover possible criminal prosecutions in circumstances of that nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, the proposed legislation is a straitjacket; it is the wrong way ahead.
	My noble friend Lord Taylor gave one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House. He told us that wisdom is better than strength. How right he is. He suffered a lot from prejudice in his personal experiences. I greatly admire the resolute way in which he has always pursued what he believes.
	As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, reminded us, it is the opinion-formers, the opinion-leaders, who have helped to fashion our multi-racial society. We have every right to be proud of that. I hope that the Government will think again and listen to the many speakers who not only oppose the Bill but ask them to withdraw it. They have failed to honour the commitment given to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to consult. They have rushed into this Bill and they are already beginning to regret it.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has just affirmed, we will continue to press for reassurances. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, underwent what I can only describe as barracking from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The major point that the noble Lord was making—that freedom of speech is essential for the advancement of knowledge—seemed to have escaped the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Government will reflect upon those points.
	At Second Reading in another place, the Home Secretary said:
	"If we can find a form of words during consideration of the Bill in Committee and elsewhere that provides further reassurance . . . that freedom of expression is not inhibited, we are flexible about examining amendments to that effect".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/05; col. 669.]
	I was sad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, yesterday, that the Government do not propose to move any amendments in Committee. Some of the fears expressed by noble Lords opposite are borne out. The Government intend to push the Bill onto the statute book in its present form. I hope that the powerful appeal made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for the Government to consider amendments will be heeded.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be moving the amendment for which he is rightly given credit. The Government must cease to be intransigent on the Bill. They will not get their Bill if they maintain their present approach.
	I am not able to do justice to the many speakers who have contributed, particularly on the issue of artistic freedom, which raises huge issues about which scrupulously enlightened organisations such as PEN have briefed us. There is a double whammy in the Bill and I will deal with that in Committee.
	I was particularly impressed by the speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and her concern for the effect on the book industry. The Bill has unintended consequences about which many noble Lords have spoken.
	The Government must have a more open approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, warned us that the Bill will encourage and strengthen fundamentalism. That is a real worry.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked the very relevant question about what we are going to do about nutty religions.
	The most devastating point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was that, because of the lack of definition in the Bill, the perversion of Islam will be regarded as a religion. What the Prime Minister has been railing against will be protected by the Bill.
	I should point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have committed him to providing a Keeling schedule. As I understood it, he will reprint the Public Order Act 1986 in the form as it is amended so that we can all understand the wider context. If I am wrong, and the noble and learned Lord is not going to respond to Sir Edward Keeling's brilliant idea in 1937, perhaps the Minister will tell us.
	In conclusion, I think I speak for almost everyone on these Benches when I say that the Bill seems intrusive, despotic and is likely to be utterly, woefully, counter-productive unless it is radically amended. No matter what is supposedly intended, if the Bill is enacted in this form, as everyone has already conceded, it will restrict freedom of speech and expression. I never thought I would see the day when a government could seriously turn the act of insulting someone's religion into a criminal offence. I have already mentioned that the Labour Party has sought to exploit this legislation and the opposition to it of other parties to its own political advantage. No generation of politicians has the right to play fast and loose with our fundamental freedoms in the way that it has, especially in the lack of any consensus between the parties.
	In his famous message to Congress at the beginning of 1941, President Roosevelt spoke of four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression; freedom of every person to worship God in his own way; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. Whatever the motivation behind the Bill, it fails the Roosevelt test because it will spread fear and restrict freedom of speech and expression in ways that we can scarcely begin to imagine. I hope that the Government will think again.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it falls to me, at the opening of my response, to join in the general congratulations that have been offered to my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lady Corston. I listened with great interest to their speeches, not least that of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. He is the chairman of an extraordinarily successful football club. If my noble friend looks at the league table for the Championship, he will see Brighton and Hove Albion languishing in the lower part of that division. So I may have to advise our chairman that he needs to seek urgent advice north of the Border.
	I also pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Corston for her contribution to the debate. My noble friend has a very distinguished political history and brings to your Lordships' House her extensive knowledge as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Her words today were well chosen and not in the least controversial. Indeed, I thought they were most helpful to our debate, and I am sure that she will assist us greatly when the Bill goes into Committee for more detailed consideration.
	This has been a very long and interesting debate. There were many excellent contributions from all sides of your Lordships' House, with a very full range of views expressed. I anticipated that this would not be the most popular of measures before your Lordships' House, given the audience suggested by the speakers' list. Of course we in government will reflect very carefully on all the comments that have been made. It is no great mystery that the Bill generates strong views for and against the proposed offences. I appreciate and understand that many noble Lords have considerable reservations about the Bill. The Government recognise those concerns and we will try to deal with as many of them as possible this evening and during the detailed consideration of the measures in Committee.
	I remain convinced of the need for legislation in this area. There is a gap in the law, albeit a small one, and it is right that we seek to address that. We will have the opportunity to look at the detail, but I am encouraged by the constructive nature of most of the debate. I shall try to deal with some of the more general issues as we go through them.
	It is worth going back to where we started and asking ourselves again why we feel the Bill is required. The new offence will close the unacceptable loophole whereby Jews and Sikhs are protected from incited hatred whereas other faith groups and those without religious beliefs are not. Jews and Sikhs are covered by existing incitement-to-racial-hatred laws as a result of decisions made in the courts. This is on the basis of those groups having a distinct ethnic identity. The existing law, as it is currently interpreted, does not protect other religions that do not have distinct ethnic origins, whether they are Christians or Muslims. This measure will end that anomaly by extending the same protection to all.
	Unfortunately, as we know, some individuals seek to turn people's fears and frustrations into hatred of others purely because they have different religious beliefs. This may take the form of malicious publications, distributed by extremist groups, or of speeches at public meetings that use inflammatory language and exhort people to make life unbearable for those of a certain religion. Ample evidence of that has been given during the debate this evening and it has been very passionately expressed.
	We believe that although incitement to religious hatred is not an everyday occurrence, where it exists it has the potential to tear communities apart, creating the dangerous tensions between groups to which many of your Lordships have given voice this evening. At an individual level—we cannot ignore this fact—that can lead to fear, intimidation and a sense of isolation. Since the Bill prohibits stirring up hatred against people defined by reference to their religious beliefs and not the religion itself, and does not prohibit simply causing offence or hostility, we envisage that the offence will capture only a very few cases each year.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that since 1987, with the commencement of the Public Order Act, there have been just 76 prosecutions and 44 convictions. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and many others argued in part that this is failure on the part of government and law enforcement agencies and that we should be more energetic and work harder to secure convictions and enforce the law as it is.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, since the Minister has mentioned me, I remind him that I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, asking her to inform the House in this debate, if she were here, about what the police and the prosecutors have done since the disgraceful events of 7 July to use existing laws. I very much hope that the Minister will enlighten the House because my impression is that very little has been done with existing laws. We need to know that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that point. He sent me a note earlier and I shall endeavour to respond to him. I have some statistical information which I can impart.
	Noble Lords have given voice to the fact that, in your Lordships' House at least, creating the offences that we outline in the Bill has a rather shallow base of support. That may be the case, but, as has been said, our Government fought on a manifesto, which we take as a mandate, and this measure was included in that. It is also the case that this measure has widespread support outside your Lordships' House. I quote an ICM poll in the Guardian which revealed that 57 per cent agreed with the statement that the new offence was needed to stop those who want to stir up hatred against people of particular religious faiths. Only 36 per cent responded that people should be allowed to express their opinions freely, however hateful. We know that extensive questions have been asked about the legislation, but, on the basis of that poll, it cannot be denied that there is support outside your Lordships' House. Similarly, a Greater London Authority poll published in June this year indicated that some 72 per cent of Londoners supported the Government's proposal with just 15 per cent opposing it. There is support for the measure, and for that reason we intend to proceed with the legislation.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does he agree that such polls have centred, as he indicated, on incitement and do not go into the detail of further liability beyond incitement, which is always quoted?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I invite my noble friend to agree that it is important that the issue of incitement is dealt with. The polls reflect that. We take them as active encouragement for the measures included in the Bill.
	The heart of the debate in your Lordships' House has focused, understandably, around freedom of expression. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his opening speech, made it plain that the Bill will have an impact on freedom of speech, just as the incitement to racial hatred offence does. We believe that that is right because there are words and actions that, as many have argued persuasively this evening, should have no place in a civilised society. In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, accepted that there will be infringements on the absolute right of freedom of speech. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, did exactly the same in his contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also agreed with that point in his comments.
	However, we need to understand what the Bill will not do. Many contributors to the debate focused on the issue of freedom of expression. When I listened to the comments, I could not recognise the Bill as its impact was being described. The Bill will not catch those who criticise beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers, for example, by claiming that they are false or harmful. The Bill will not catch or penalise those who proselytise their own religion or urge followers of a different religion to cease practising theirs; for example, Christians claiming that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, the life and the only way to God. The Bill will not lead to the prosecution of those telling jokes about religions. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, told a rather good joke which certainly will not be caught by our legislation, and it is not our intent that it should in the future.
	The arguments that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, deserve some attention. Today and in the past, he has argued that the current law provides equal protection for Jews, Sikhs and Muslims and that Jews and Sikhs are covered by the racial hatred legislation only because of their ethnicity. Any stirring up of hatred against them based on their religious adherence would not be covered. He also suggests that the Government could define Muslims as a racial group for the purpose of including them in the racial hatred offences. We believe that the arguments of the noble Lord are flawed, in that Muslims are clearly not a racial group. It is difficult, in practice, to distinguish racial from religious in terms of the mono-ethnic religions. That would not achieve our stated policy intentions. For those reasons, we need to proceed as we are.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall not interrupt again, but I would like a clear answer to this point. The noble Lord, like his colleagues, repeatedly says that the Bill is about attacking groups of people and not beliefs. In new Section 17A, "religious hatred" is defined as,
	"hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief".
	If I say, "I hate that group of people; I hate them; and I hate them because I hate their adherence to a religion that is evil and whose practices are evil", it seems to me that I must be guilty of an offence. My hatred of the group of persons and my hatred of their beliefs, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, pointed out, are rolled up together. Why does not the Bill catch that kind of very intemperate criticism of the beliefs linked with the group? I do not understand how it fails to do so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not have a problem with that because the circumstances the noble Lord describes would be designed to stir up and incite racial hatred.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a criticism of the religion. If you say that a religion is hateful, it follows, as the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Sutherland, and I said, that you are also saying that the people who practise it are hateful. One cannot distinguish between the two.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not have a problem with that. Perhaps noble Lords are seeing a problem that is not there. I wish to press on because noble Lords have asked a number of questions. I want to try to respond to as many as I can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been keen for us to produce figures on arrests nationally. The Metropolitan Police has advised us that between 7 July and 23rd September this year, so far as concerns cases involving racial motivation, there have been some 393 accusations in relation to offences reported and 33 religiously motivated accusations within its area.
	With regard to prosecutions or convictions, the Crown Prosecution Service has advised that nationally for the three months from July to September this year, there were some 2,071 prosecutions of which 1,533 resulted in conviction. Those figures comprise all offences with a racist or religious dimension. I hope that that information helps the noble Lord in framing his approach to the Bill.
	With regard specifically to prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred, I can advise the House that one has commenced since 7 July and is continuing. Seven defendants, six of whom were co-defendants in the same case, have been convicted since that date. The cases against all seven defendants began before 7 July. So there is important activity. But in some ways the figures suggest that much more needs to be done; and that is why we adopt the view that we do.
	Noble Lords asked about the position of the Attorney-General and his consent for prosecutions under the measure. Under the existing racial hatred offence, there is a requirement for the Attorney-General's consent. I have not heard an argument that suggests that that does not work well. It has not caused problems since that legislation was introduced by the Conservatives in 1986. I have not heard it argued from opposition Benches, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, that the Attorney-General's consent should be removed from racial hatred offences.
	I wish to tackle the issue of the drafting of the Bill. A number of noble Lords said that the Bill was too wide. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that it was too sweeping. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, said that the Bill was loosely drafted. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bill uses the same terms as those used for the existing racial hatred offences. The racial offences do not define hatred. No one has suggested that the existing offences are loosely drafted or that the words used in that legislation need to be further defined. The courts have had no difficulty with the existing range of offences and their understanding of them. Therefore, in so far as the language and terminology have been used in legislation of a parallel nature, the law has worked well and the meaning of that legislation is clear.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked an interesting and valuable question about how courts will balance human rights in cases. The noble Viscount deserves an answer. We believe that his question raises some interesting points. I should like to take a longer look at those issues and write to the noble Viscount so that we can give him a fuller explanation.
	We were also asked whether the Government would consider repealing the existing blasphemy laws. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raised that. Some religious and non-religious groups have suggested that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be repealed. In the debate on the Queen's Speech earlier this year, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider that in the future but wished to consider it separately from this legislation and in conjunction with faith communities. I think that that was a wise comment, having heard some of the complaints about the lack of consultation on aspects of the Bill. There are no plans at present to abolish blasphemy, but it is important to give it longer-term consideration.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord may have overlooked my question regarding whether or not the Government would allow a free vote when I table an amendment to abolish blasphemy, as I intend to do tomorrow.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is for consideration on another day. I certainly do not wish to dwell on it this evening, particularly as I have many points to respond to and am fast running out of the time that I should occupy.
	I was particularly interested in the contribution from the Opposition Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. She made the important point that the Government should tackle Muslim disadvantage. I could not disagree with that. One has to look at the legislation in context and as part of a developing and evolving policy. If we took part of the noble Baroness' comments at face value, we would not be acting at all on an agenda that dealt with social cohesion and inequality or tackled the disadvantages and alienation that exists in many Muslim communities.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, because I know that noble Lords would like to go home. I do not believe that the Bill will tackle underachievement in any way. The Bill will separate us even further from each other. It will create space between us, and we will be more afraid to communicate in a free and frank manner.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness made that point, too, during her speech. We see it as part of a bigger picture, and it is a necessary measure to deal with a particular evil in a small set of circumstances.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as ever, made a valid contribution, and he asked for responses on three points. He talked about "nutty" religions. Courts are used to dealing with questions of definition, particularly relating to religion. There is relevant case law on the issue that, we believe, would exclude religions that, for example, advocated child abuse. So, we can expect the law to be sensible in dealing with "nutty" religions.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord define a "nutty" religion? Some people think that all religions are nutty.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Well, my Lords, no doubt they do, and we have to respect people's views.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs asked whether the Attorney-General would be able to resist pressure. I can think of no examples of the Attorney-General using his powers inappropriately in the context of racial hatred offences. We must trust the good sense of the office holder and in the past we have been able to do that with confidence, whichever party has been in government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made an important point about managing expectations, which many others echoed. I agree that we have work to do in that regard, and we are already undertaking—

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the state can adjudicate in these complicated matters? Why not leave religions to work it out for themselves? Does he really believe that the state can do it?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is a case for state intervention in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made a number of powerful points on that.
	We have now had 22 minutes of my reply. I have no great desire to withdraw from or duck the issues raised in the debate; they are extensive and most of them can be dealt with in Committee. If I have missed important points in dealing with the broad thrust of the issues I shall pick them up in correspondence and will be more than happy to circulate that to all who have taken part.
	One issue in particular was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the importance of consulting on guidance. I assure the House that we fully intend to do that. We hope to publish draft guidance before we get too far into the detail of the debate in Committee.
	The issue of publication of the Keeling schedule was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Hunt. We have produced a consolidated version of what the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill would look like in its connection with the Public Order Act 1986. That is available and was placed today in the Library.
	This has been a very long, learned, interesting, witty and powerful debate. I can see from the plethora of questions and issues raised that we are going to have a very hard-fought Committee stage. As ever, I shall give a commitment from the Government Benches that we will listen and respond to those points. Of course we will continue to work with those who seek to resolve what I think most of us can agree is a very urgent issue. Even the strongest opponents of the Government's case accept that there is an issue at the root of this. I hope that our debates can be constructive in finding a solution that finds support not only in your Lordships' House but more particularly in another place.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

House adjourned at twenty three minutes before eleven o'clock.

Tuesday, 11 October 2005.